I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated. Otherwise with a double vaccine certificate you do not have to and it is still personal choice
When Mike first raised this subject a few weeks ago, the site abounded with posters accusing mask wearers of 'virtue signalling' and proclaiming that 'if you can't stop wearing a mask now you never will'. Will those posters take this opportunity to apologize for their impetuousness?
The thought of Nicholas Witchell wringing his hands in his obsequious, cringey way all day and every day for weeks and weeks on end is just too much to bear. There's something about him that really gives me the creeps. If for no other reason, I hope HMQ makes it to 120.
When Mike first raised this subject a few weeks ago, the site abounded with posters accusing mask wearers of 'virtue signalling' and proclaiming that 'if you can't stop wearing a mask now you never will'. Will those posters take this opportunity to apologize for their impetuousness?
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chaImber.
If you think that, why would an Mp's personal choice influence your vote ?
It would definitely influence my vote if in some parties MPs were instructed to wear masks by party officials, so making it not their personal choice. The same rules could then be applied to everyone if that party were in power after the election.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
At the beginning of the year we were told the French were never going to have a high uptake of the vaccine.
Then we were told they had failed to secure sufficient supplies.
Then we were told there'd be rioting on the streets if they introduced antivaxxer restrictions.
Turns out that was all a load anti-French bigoted bolleaux!
Don't agree.
I find the assault on the rights of their own citizens - denial of basic healthcare FFS - to be very disappointing. I'd say shocking, but I've used the word once today already.
They might as well be escorting them to vaccine stations at gunpoint.
Hardly surprising that it has taken 60 years to apologise for the massacre of 100 peaceful demonstators by police promised impunity on the streets of Paris in 1961, if respect for citizens' autonomy is so poor.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
Shame, looks like that YouGov 10% lead was an outlier all along. Today's from them sees
Con 37 (-4) Lab 33 (+2) LD 9 Green 10 (+2)
I suspect it's tied in with the realisation that Brexit was a Bad Idea. Yesterday's Guardian article showed that Leavers were glad that the Tories had Got Brexit Done. Now they don't like the results as much Tory support is slipping.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Indeed. How f*cking inept our government looks in comparison!
I will to some extent defend the government on the specific case of vaccinating the 12-17 ages. The hold up was the JCVI. You can argue that they should have been over-ruled, but they quite deliberately delayed even making a decision, long after the MHRA had approved use in those age ranges, and long after France had started jabbing their teenagers.
Mrs T's maxim applies: Advisors advise, ministers decide. Johnson dithers and then asks Carrie what she thinks.
The problem is when 'follow the science' is the strategy and the scientists don't want to make a decision.
And the whole vaccination for 12-15s was a minor thing in any case compared with the importance of boosters.
The warm spring of UK vaccine smugness* is fading rapidly to a winter of missed opportunities.
(*In which I partook tbh)
Well it's a learning curve isn't it? We'll be having Covid boosters for years to come so hopefully they'll get more efficient at rolling them out every autumn...
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
Sounds like an eminently workable solution. (!)
If you have a double vaccination certificate of course, you would still have personal choice and could use your certificate as proof if you chose not to wear a mask
When Mike first raised this subject a few weeks ago, the site abounded with posters accusing mask wearers of 'virtue signalling' and proclaiming that 'if you can't stop wearing a mask now you never will'. Will those posters take this opportunity to apologize for their impetuousness?
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Indeed. How f*cking inept our government looks in comparison!
I see less of the crowing about the vaccine rollout from Clown apologists these days? When history judges Johnson's management of this pandemic it is going to be savage. As for the initial success of the vaccine rollout (his only defence), Churchill's maxim of “The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes” seems very apt.
I think that's right. Ex vaccines (and I'm not sure he "drove that through" so much as didn't meddle) his performance looks relatively poor as regards the rich world. History books won't have a vote at the next election, though, and he's stubbornly high in the polls. The Cons Most Seats is STILL available at over 1.5 and I find this remarkable.
Mr. Tubbs, executing the unvaccinated would also increase vaccination rates, one way or another.
We also did not need vaccine passports to have a fantastic first two parts of the programme. The problem is not caused by lack of state tracking and social/occupational ostracism, it's caused by a strange lack of follow-through with the boosters and a perverse (much commented on here) reluctance and faffing about when it came to vaccinating teenagers.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
If they're still wearing them at the time of the next election, you mean, when Covid is no longer a big concern?
Or do you mean you're noticing NOW and filing the memory away to punish that party come the election?
The next election is still probably a long way off, but COVID could still be a big concern then. I shall wait to see what happens. Even if the current pandemic is over by 2024, the way that different parties have reacted to COVID says a lot about them which could still influence my vote.
The thought of Nicholas Witchell wringing his hands in his obsequious, cringey way all day and every day for weeks and weeks on end is just too much to bear. There's something about him that really gives me the creeps. If for no other reason, I hope HMQ makes it to 120.
Like that lawyer who sold Jeanne calment an annuity and predeceased her.
Mind you I am a fan of the theory that he woz robbed, she was really her daughter.
The thought of Nicholas Witchell wringing his hands in his obsequious, cringey way all day and every day for weeks and weeks on end is just too much to bear. There's something about him that really gives me the creeps. If for no other reason, I hope HMQ makes it to 120.
I didn't know you posted here, your Royal Highness.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
1 - Does you wife mind? 2 - Shreddies are good but carb-heavy and moreish. Aldi version is great. 3 - For shits and giggles only. Buckethead is better. 4 - Depends. 5 - Needs thinking about. The night club and entertainment industries have been 2 of the most irresponsible throughout promoting their own business interest regardless of public safety.
As far as I'm aware those going to nightclubs are adults for the most part. Who are perfectly aware of the issues they face.
Young adults, that said, so not really at risk from Covid in the way that oldies are and I don't see oldies queuing round the block to get into Heaven. Or at least not *that* heaven.
It's not limited to "impact on me" though, is it? It's consequent impact on others.
These arguments were being made when we were not vaccinated.
Ditto the beauty industry with their spurious comparisons.
Shame, looks like that YouGov 10% lead was an outlier all along. Today's from them sees
Con 37 (-4) Lab 33 (+2) LD 9 Green 10 (+2)
That's looking a bit neck and neck to me, on the assumption that some of the Green vote (the disillusioned Labour left) would go back to Labour at a GE in those seats where a Tory could be removed. Purely hypothetical, of course.
It does seem as if the previously rock-solid Tory vote of 40-45% is finally beginning to wane.
A harrowing but necessary primer on the rise of the Jalisco cartel
‘García, whose son César Ulises disappeared in 2017 and has not been found, described the macabre routine of such relatives as they sifted through excavated remains for those they had loved and lost. “You see these things up on the screen and say to yourself: ‘That arm looks sort of familiar, that head.’ It’s just so terrible – the viciousness that we’re seeing in this state,” she said.
‘Nearby stood Cecilia Flores, 54, whose 28-year-old son, Wilians, was taken in 2019. Four months later officials told her some body parts had been recovered from a notorious torture house called El Mirador. “They found a hand, his torso and forearm. I’m still missing the other hand and his legs,” she said.’
In fiction the excellent Sicario touched on this although of course it was very watered down for cinema audiences.
One of the most appalling aspects of this hideous conflict is that the cartel killers film all their sadism and butchery, and put it online. To terrorise, of course
I’ve seen a few. They’re not hard to find. I don’t ever want to see any more. Maybe I shouldn’t have watched the few I did. But isn’t that itself a kind of cowardice? Looking away, averting the face, pretend it isn’t happening?
Suffice to say they make the worst ISIS vids look… quaintly medieval
To be honest I think the US should designate these cartels as terrorist groups and start droning the leaders and members.
How did the War on Drugs work out last time?
Read that Atlantic article on the latest synthetic drugs. You can’t legalise them. They’re too addictive, potent and dangerous: they literally turn people into schizophrenics, within weeks
I used to be a legaliser. Now I’m not
The only countries that have cracked this are the zero tolerance countries. East Asia. Severe sentences and the death penalty.
The only man to control the Mafia was Mussolini. He did it by killing thousands, often innocent
A terrible crime. But the drugs problem has reached a stage where alternatives are worse. 250,000 have died already, in Mexico alone
(Reading it now)
I don't disagree.
Legalise things that are merely bad for you, and criminalise (and punish *users* severely) for stuff that is more problematic.
The drugs that are crazy bad for you came about as attempts to get round supply chain problems related to illegality.
If you legalised, people would move to the safer equivalents.
Like many things there are a variety of approaches. The worst (and commonest) is inconsistency, constant publicity exercises, 'crackdowns' (there was one this week) and so on.
The possible approaches ate inconsistent with each other, so you have to make enemies in choosing. You are treading on toes and vested interests.
The big options are: Legalise, laissez faire. Legalise, regulate, tax. Criminalise, with the emphasis on the supplier Ditto, with the emphasis on the user/purchaser (ie very long sentences merely for small time use and possession).
We have discovered over decades that the third does not work. The second and fourth have never been tried and, IMHO, are the only ones with any chance at all of success.
if you are making millions you will risk a 20 year sentence. How many ordinary folks would risk possession and use if the penalty were the same as possession of a firearm?
More than enough to completely overfill our prison system, that's for sure. The Lord Advocate in Scotland recently announced, to very little fanfare, that there would be a strong presumption against any prosecution for simple possession of any illegal drugs. The lack of moaning about this dramatic decision suggests to me that the political balance on this is rapidly moving towards legalisation. Just a few more thousand dead to go.
This may be right but has it been tested? How many budding professionals in universities want a four year sentence on their record? I prefer legalisation, but the voter and the Mail don't. Sadly I don't think it is practical politics.
The deeper argument is that, as with prostitution, there is a case for saying that the demander is the real crook, not the supplier. Curiously the left and the young like this argument about the sex trade but less so about drugs.....I wonder why.
The person who knowingly receives, sells, uses, stolen goods is the person who keeps the thief in business.
Are you sure you've got the sex trade right? If so, that may be unfortunate. I'd have imagined a free and open sex trade would end the incel movement and reduce the incidence of rape, and also make it easier to eliminate trafficking. Though I make no claim to expertise.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
And why do you think asymptomatic infection among the fully vaccinated is a bad thing ?
Its how we're going to achieve herd immunity.
Instead of thinking about 'cases' we should be thinking of how many people are acquiring immunity every day.
Shame, looks like that YouGov 10% lead was an outlier all along. Today's from them sees
Con 37 (-4) Lab 33 (+2) LD 9 Green 10 (+2)
Maybe the Conservatives did manage a conference bounce, though heaven only knows why. It seemed to largely be a non-event.
Two other observations; 1 C+4 is pretty low for YouGov, and (as a bit of fun) would probably be "Conservatives in office, but not in power" at a real election.
2 So much depends on who is reading the Lab/Green split correctly.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
Sounds like an eminently workable solution. (!)
If you have a double vaccination certificate of course, you would still have personal choice and could use your certificate as proof if you chose not to wear a mask
So, everyone not wearing a mask will have to show a vaccine card? Fine by me but the vaccine passport objectors* will still object to that (*including large numbers of Tory MPs.)
Shame, looks like that YouGov 10% lead was an outlier all along. Today's from them sees
Con 37 (-4) Lab 33 (+2) LD 9 Green 10 (+2)
That's looking a bit neck and neck to me, on the assumption that some of the Green vote (the disillusioned Labour left) would go back to Labour at a GE in those seats where a Tory could be removed. Purely hypothetical, of course.
It does seem as if the previously rock-solid Tory vote of 40-45% is finally beginning to wane.
I tend to add half the Green polling (if it's high) to Lab for a GE equivalent. Probably shouldn't, but I do.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
Sounds like an eminently workable solution. (!)
If you have a double vaccination certificate of course, you would still have personal choice and could use your certificate as proof if you chose not to wear a mask
So, everyone not wearing a mask will have to show a vaccine card? Fine by me but the vaccine passport objectors* will still object to that (*including large numbers of Tory MPs.)
As I have already said I don't object to vaccine passports, certainly for large events and crowded areas
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
Sounds like an eminently workable solution. (!)
If you have a double vaccination certificate of course, you would still have personal choice and could use your certificate as proof if you chose not to wear a mask
So, everyone not wearing a mask will have to show a vaccine card? Fine by me but the vaccine passport objectors* will still object to that (*including large numbers of Tory MPs.)
As I have already said I don't object to vaccine passports
Not your party's policy though is it? And you call yourself a real Tory!? ;-)
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
1 - Does you wife mind? 2 - Shreddies are good but carb-heavy and moreish. Aldi version is great. 3 - For shits and giggles only. Buckethead is better. 4 - Depends. 5 - Needs thinking about. The night club and entertainment industries have been 2 of the most irresponsible throughout promoting their own business interest regardless of public safety.
As far as I'm aware those going to nightclubs are adults for the most part. Who are perfectly aware of the issues they face.
Young adults, that said, so not really at risk from Covid in the way that oldies are and I don't see oldies queuing round the block to get into Heaven. Or at least not *that* heaven.
It's not limited to "impact on me" though, is it? It's consequent impact on others.
These arguments were being made when we were not vaccinated.
Ditto the beauty industry with their spurious comparisons.
I agree. Before vaccines youngsters were at relatively very low risk why shouldn't they have gone out to nightclubs. Now, vaxxed, or even not, they remain at very low risk.
For much of the population, vaxxed or young, Covid is indeed like a bad case of the flu. Very few hospitalisations, fewer (any? I'm sure there must be) deaths.
So the "impact on others" is for a 20-yr old to be laid low with flu-like symptoms (or, as in the case of my nephew, a hangover, he wasn't sure which it was - Covid or alcohol).
And for this you want to do what? Put in rules? Well of course it's the market they can do what they want but you are then saying they have been irresponsible by not doing so whereas it's entirely sensible.
When Mike first raised this subject a few weeks ago, the site abounded with posters accusing mask wearers of 'virtue signalling' and proclaiming that 'if you can't stop wearing a mask now you never will'. Will those posters take this opportunity to apologize for their impetuousness?
The Opposition MPs *are* virtue signalling. They are doing differently that they did at conference.
Rees-Mogg skewered it quite nicely, when Thangam Debbonaire put on a Parliamentary Fashion Show.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
From later in the thread; Yesterday's reported figure would have been 16,402 not 44,363. We'd have saved a million cases in the meantime (1.83m not 2.88m), so maybe a couple of thousand deaths? (depending on what you assume about IFR and case ascertainment). Of course, interventions come with a cost. Some people will tell you that any intervention that would have removed one infectious contact out of every twenty would be tantamount to a police state and that life wouldn't be worth living, and that is a perfectly consistent worldview. But I think it's also worth understanding what the effect of relatively small changes in behaviour compounded over a few months could have been.
My 84 year old mum today received an email inviting her to book her covid booster...
... when I go on-line to book it for her it says "You are not currently eligible".
Well not a surprise if you see my posts. I will walk into a no appointment vaccine centre, but many won't do it without an invitation. The booster stuff is a shambles, yet they are blaming the public.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
And why do you think asymptomatic infection among the fully vaccinated is a bad thing ?
Its how we're going to achieve herd immunity.
Instead of thinking about 'cases' we should be thinking of how many people are acquiring immunity every day.
You might want to look up a bit of the science on "herd immunity". Besides, I would rather the government does not go for lockdowns again in the future. If that means I need to wear a mask for my very occasional visit to Tesco for the next year to avoid that then so be it.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
Sounds like an eminently workable solution. (!)
If you have a double vaccination certificate of course, you would still have personal choice and could use your certificate as proof if you chose not to wear a mask
So, everyone not wearing a mask will have to show a vaccine card? Fine by me but the vaccine passport objectors* will still object to that (*including large numbers of Tory MPs.)
As I have already said I don't object to vaccine passports
Not your party's policy though is it? And you call yourself a real Tory!? ;-)
Vaccine passports for nightclubs at least were party policy and announced by the PM himself in the summer until he backtracked.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
Because taking the vaccine is optional. The NHS will prioritise those in greatest need, regardless of the choices they have made.
I repeat a point I keep making - we have always known that a proportion of the public will not take the vaccine. In the event, take-up rates are significantly higher than most predicted.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
I agree though mandating requires enforcement and I am not sure who is brave enough to take on that role
The one thing the media are doing is making it more likely people will use masks more, especially in enclosed spaces but also in their own actions to safeguard themselves. Though it is clear a considerable number of people wearing masks, either do know how or are playing lip service to them
Certainly here in North Wales there is little evidence of compliance and indeed Wales, and Scotland, are not faring any better than England in this rise in infections
I am pleased Boris is holding firm at this stage and it has been noted that Labour are not calling for plan B either
The delay in vaccinating children was all down to the JCVI where it is recognised they were more interested in sending our vaccines abroad than protecting our children and I believe they should be disbanded
Peter: Well, you could believe Mr. Pecker. Walter Peck: My name is Peck. Peter: Or you could accept the fact that this city is headed for a disaster of Biblical proportion. Mayor: What do you mean "Biblical?" Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor. Real "Wrath of God"-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky, rivers and seas boiling ... Egon: ... forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos ... Winston: ... the dead rising from the grave ... Peter: ... human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria!
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
Sounds like an eminently workable solution. (!)
If you have a double vaccination certificate of course, you would still have personal choice and could use your certificate as proof if you chose not to wear a mask
So, everyone not wearing a mask will have to show a vaccine card? Fine by me but the vaccine passport objectors* will still object to that (*including large numbers of Tory MPs.)
As I have already said I don't object to vaccine passports
Not your party's policy though is it? And you call yourself a real Tory!? ;-)
Vaccine passports for nightclubs at least were party policy and announced by the PM himself in the summer until he backtracked.
I am a Tory not a libertarian
Yes, these two ideologies do keep getting muddled don't they.
Meanwhile, 95-yr old woman "back at her desk" after hospital check ups.
Three health stories in a week - gives up drink, ni, hospital.
I greatly fear we are being prepared for bad news.
It's treason to predict the death of the Monarch.
Given the recent track record of other elderly members of the family, the likelihood is that she has several years of medical treatment of increasing frequency and severity.
I think there is a certain inevitability, given Johnson's track record with bridges, that "Operation London Bridge" will occur on his watch. Hopefully during his third or fourth term.
When Mike first raised this subject a few weeks ago, the site abounded with posters accusing mask wearers of 'virtue signalling' and proclaiming that 'if you can't stop wearing a mask now you never will'. Will those posters take this opportunity to apologize for their impetuousness?
The Opposition MPs *are* virtue signalling. They are doing differently that they did at conference.
Rees-Mogg skewered it quite nicely, when Thangam Debbonaire put on a Parliamentary Fashion Show.
OK. Labour were tits by behaving differently at conference as they do in the Commons. The Tories are tits by behaving differently one day to the next with a compare and contrast between PMQs Wednesday and the UQ Thursday after Javed's "oh right yeah" response at the Wednesday teatime presser.
There are no party political points to score here.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
Because taking the vaccine is optional. The NHS will prioritise those in greatest need, regardless of the choices they have made.
I repeat a point I keep making - we have always known that a proportion of the public will not take the vaccine. In the event, take-up rates are significantly higher than most predicted.
The let us hear no more about a lack of resources for the NHS - it has the resources but is deciding you use them on people who have previously refused the vital treatment of vaccination.
Whether the people having to wait for treatment because the NHS has decided to use those resources on anti-vaxxers will agree with the NHS's choice is the question.
Meanwhile, 95-yr old woman "back at her desk" after hospital check ups.
Three health stories in a week - gives up drink, ni, hospital.
I greatly fear we are being prepared for bad news.
It's treason to predict the death of the Monarch.
Given the recent track record of other elderly members of the family, the likelihood is that she has several years of medical treatment of increasing frequency and severity.
I think there is a certain inevitability, given Johnson's track record with bridges, that "Operation London Bridge" will occur on his watch. Hopefully during his third or fourth term.
For maximum chaos, during the election campaign.....
Severe Covid and the #brain: infection can induce "string vessels" in patients due to death of endothelial cells (lining blood vessels), signifying microvascular damage, verified in experimental models https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1451221512300552193
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
Duh! Of course it does. The point is that you can still get COVID and pass it on when double jabbed. Mask wearing in crowded places makes that considerably less likely, particularly when the infection rate is so high. I am on the fence as to whether it should be mandatory, but those (such as fuckwit Rees-Mogg) that seem to want to discourage it are exceptionally irresponsible.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
And why do you think asymptomatic infection among the fully vaccinated is a bad thing ?
Its how we're going to achieve herd immunity.
Instead of thinking about 'cases' we should be thinking of how many people are acquiring immunity every day.
You might want to look up a bit of the science on "herd immunity". Besides, I would rather the government does not go for lockdowns again in the future. If that means I need to wear a mask for my very occasional visit to Tesco for the next year to avoid that then so be it.
If you want to wear a mask then you are free to do so.
But my advice would be to wear a proper mask rather than the worthless ones most people wear and even then often wrongly.
Mr. Slackbladder, I bet Alonso fans love them (he's so-so at qualifying but great wheel-to-wheel) but otherwise the main supporters seem to be F1 bigwigs trying to squeeze more money out of fans with a pretend race in between qualifying and the actual race.
Mr. HYUFD, we'll see. Perhaps.
The sprint races are there to attract the fans attending the event, with something over all three days, and to give more TV programmes for us all to watch. The problem is, that even if the sprints are crap, they attract a bigger audience then events without them - which is why F1 and the promotors will keep them going, even if the fans take a different view.
Jacob Rees-Mogg thinks Tory MPs don't need to wear masks because they have a "convivial, fraternal spirit".
When someone is so obnoxious, you have to be thankful he's also funny.
Let's hope he never becomes Health Secretary and passes a mandate for surgeons to no longer where masks when carrying out surgery if they can be seen to have a convivial, fraternal spirit instead.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
If someone is badly sick you treat them asap. This is the principle we try our best to live up to. But whatever, the main point to understand is that there's no chance of doctors turning away a suffering curable person who needs treatment for serious Covid-19 on the grounds they are unvaccinated. So it's kind of a waste of space suggesting it, except as a way of expressing frustration with antivaxers.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 48m Cases are going to start to fall within the next 2-3 weeks. Once they start to fall, they are going to drop, over time, by some 30% or more from their current level. Cases this winter are going to be lower than now, not higher.
Shame, looks like that YouGov 10% lead was an outlier all along. Today's from them sees
Con 37 (-4) Lab 33 (+2) LD 9 Green 10 (+2)
That's looking a bit neck and neck to me, on the assumption that some of the Green vote (the disillusioned Labour left) would go back to Labour at a GE in those seats where a Tory could be removed. Purely hypothetical, of course.
It does seem as if the previously rock-solid Tory vote of 40-45% is finally beginning to wane.
The Tory vote share just tracks consumer confidence, especially confidence among older people, with a lag of a month or two. So I would expect the lead to keep falling through year-end given the decline in confidence already in train plus likely further declines amid rising inflation, rising Covid cases, tax increases and interest rate hikes. Cross-over on at least one poll before year-end seems likely. It shouldn't trigger Tory panic given distance to the next election, of course.
When Mike first raised this subject a few weeks ago, the site abounded with posters accusing mask wearers of 'virtue signalling' and proclaiming that 'if you can't stop wearing a mask now you never will'. Will those posters take this opportunity to apologize for their impetuousness?
The Opposition MPs *are* virtue signalling. They are doing differently that they did at conference.
Rees-Mogg skewered it quite nicely, when Thangam Debbonaire put on a Parliamentary Fashion Show.
OK. Labour were tits by behaving differently at conference as they do in the Commons. The Tories are tits by behaving differently one day to the next with a compare and contrast between PMQs Wednesday and the UQ Thursday after Javed's "oh right yeah" response at the Wednesday teatime presser.
There are no party political points to score here.
I am quite content, these days, to point the finger and laugh at the Labour Party with the rest of PB. However, a stunt, or no stunt by the Labour Party in the HoC on Wednesday, who knows? Either way the Tories were caught with their trousers down, and their masks off.
Let us assume for one moment it was the cynical stunt that the PB Tories assume it to be, can you imagine the hysterical laughter if Johnson had executed such a jolly jape and made the Opposition look foolish?
For what it is worth, I can't imagine Starmer's Labour Party having the wit to pull off such an event.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated. Otherwise with a double vaccine certificate you do not have to and it is still personal choice
When Mike first raised this subject a few weeks ago, the site abounded with posters accusing mask wearers of 'virtue signalling' and proclaiming that 'if you can't stop wearing a mask now you never will'. Will those posters take this opportunity to apologize for their impetuousness?
The Opposition MPs *are* virtue signalling. They are doing differently that they did at conference.
Rees-Mogg skewered it quite nicely, when Thangam Debbonaire put on a Parliamentary Fashion Show.
"Rees-Mogg skewered it"? FFS. He made himself look an even bigger jerk than he normally does. Maybe he should mention to all those families that passed it between each other that it is OK not to take precautions if you "know each other"? Only an idiot such as Johnson could put this pillock on the front bench.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
That's what people said about Brexit - but the failure to defuse the underlying frustration led to Brexit all the same.
There will be trouble if the lives of the vaccinated are restricted solely because of the refusal of a minority to accept the protection of immunisation from the vaccine.
This is good, but I’m not sure it will make that much difference to the pressures on the NHS. 7 day average covid admissions are 868 per day. Latest average all cause admissions are from April- August 2021 & are 17,000 a day. So covid likely represents ~5% of daily admissions…
"Latest average all cause admissions are from April- August 2021 & are 17,000 a day. So covid likely represents ~5% of daily admissions…"
Without data on how long people are likely to be in hospital, that statistic could be very misleading.
Imagine if the average stay in hospital for all non-Covid causes was one day, and for Covid it was 30 days. If that were the case (and I'm sure it's not I'm just exaggerating to make my point), then 60% of all the people in hospital would be there with Covid, even though they only accounted for 5% of admissions.
This is a seriously good point.
The only figures I can readily find are from the beginning of 2021, which give the average hospital stay as around a week. Note, though, that there will be a large number discharged after two or three days, while intensive care patients can be in for very much longer. So it's probably more like 1% of admissions which cause the greatest problem.
Also the difference between this year and last is another year's accumulated backlog of treatment.
The issue is that state-run healthcare has always been capacity-restrained, so there’s waiting lists to see specialists and for facilities. The pandemic has put a lot of treatment on hold, and the waiting lists have now grown to unmanageable levels.
A forward-thinking, Conservative Chancellor would reverse the BIK treatment of employer-provided private healthcare, and instead give tax breaks for it, at the same time as allowing an unlimited number of visas for healthcare workers to massively expand the size of the private healthcare sector. Also allow NHS contracting out to facilities overseas for willing patients.
Or we could simply build more capacity and improve postgraduate training and prospects (not all of which involves more pay).
What is it about rightwingers and their desire for cheap immigrant labour and worsening trade balances by exporting service industries?
The number of training places needs to be rapidly increased too, but as you have noted in the past these things take a decade or more to filter through to more actual capacity.
The immediate need to increase capacity to clear the waiting lists, is best left to the market to sort out rather than government. No-one mentioned ‘cheap’ immigrant labour, people should be paid the going rate for the job no matter where they come from.
When Mike first raised this subject a few weeks ago, the site abounded with posters accusing mask wearers of 'virtue signalling' and proclaiming that 'if you can't stop wearing a mask now you never will'. Will those posters take this opportunity to apologize for their impetuousness?
The Opposition MPs *are* virtue signalling. They are doing differently that they did at conference.
Rees-Mogg skewered it quite nicely, when Thangam Debbonaire put on a Parliamentary Fashion Show.
OK. Labour were tits by behaving differently at conference as they do in the Commons. The Tories are tits by behaving differently one day to the next with a compare and contrast between PMQs Wednesday and the UQ Thursday after Javed's "oh right yeah" response at the Wednesday teatime presser.
There are no party political points to score here.
I am quite content, these days, to point the finger and laugh at the Labour Party with the rest of PB. However, a stunt, or no stunt by the Labour Party in the HoC on Wednesday, who knows? Either way the Tories were caught with their trousers down, and their masks off.
Let us assume for one moment it was the cynical stunt that the PB Tories assume it to be, can you imagine the hysterical laughter if Johnson had executed such a jolly jape and made the Opposition look foolish?
For what it is worth, I can't imagine Starmer's Labour Party having the wit to pull off such an event.
Sure! The nice thing about having no skin in the game with either party is to call out stupidity both from the parties and from their fanbois.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:
Smokers Drinkers Anyone who does drugs Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear Anyone injured committing a crime Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
Interesting paper suggesting that the energy transition might be harder than we thought - and not because of the cost of renewables.
Peak oil and the low-carbon energy transition: A net-energy perspective https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261921011673?via=ihub Since the Pennsylvania oil rush of 1859, petroleum has quickly become the dominant fuel of industrial society. The “Peak Oil” debate focused on whether or not there was an impending production crunch of cheap oil, and whilst there have been no shortages across the globe, a shift from conventional to unconventional oil liquids has occurred. One aspect of this shift was not fully explored in previous discussions–although of some importance in a low-carbon energy transition context: the extent to which the net-energy supply of oil products is affected by the use of lower quality energy sources. To fill this gap, this paper incorporates standard EROI (energy-return-on-investment) estimates and dynamic decline functions in the GlobalShift all-liquids bottom-up model on a global scale. We determine the energy necessary for the production of oil liquids (including direct and indirect energy costs) to represent today 15.5% of the energy production of oil liquids, and growing at an exponential rate: by 2050, a proportion equivalent to half of the gross energy output will be engulfed in its own production. Our findings thus question the feasibility of a global and fast low-carbon energy transition. We therefore suggest an urgent return of the peak oil debate, but including net-energy issues and avoiding a narrow focus on ‘peak supply’ vs ‘peak demand’.
Meanwhile, 95-yr old woman "back at her desk" after hospital check ups.
Three health stories in a week - gives up drink, ni, hospital.
I greatly fear we are being prepared for bad news.
It's treason to predict the death of the Monarch.
Given the recent track record of other elderly members of the family, the likelihood is that she has several years of medical treatment of increasing frequency and severity.
I think there is a certain inevitability, given Johnson's track record with bridges, that "Operation London Bridge" will occur on his watch. Hopefully during his third or fourth term.
For maximum chaos, during the election campaign.....
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 48m Cases are going to start to fall within the next 2-3 weeks. Once they start to fall, they are going to drop, over time, by some 30% or more from their current level. Cases this winter are going to be lower than now, not higher.
===
Pretty frank prediction there.
There is a (conspiracy?) theory going around that iSage and the Zerocovidians* are going hard now to try to get restrictions as they are aware of a likely drop around the corner.
The thinking goes, if they don't get the restrictions now, they never will, but if they get the restrictions now, they can claim credit for the drop.
Probably baloney, but it's a theory I keep encountering.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
And why do you think asymptomatic infection among the fully vaccinated is a bad thing ?
Its how we're going to achieve herd immunity.
Instead of thinking about 'cases' we should be thinking of how many people are acquiring immunity every day.
You might want to look up a bit of the science on "herd immunity". Besides, I would rather the government does not go for lockdowns again in the future. If that means I need to wear a mask for my very occasional visit to Tesco for the next year to avoid that then so be it.
If you want to wear a mask then you are free to do so.
But my advice would be to wear a proper mask rather than the worthless ones most people wear and even then often wrongly.
Thanks for your unsolicited advice. As I spent part of my early career working in operating rooms I do know how to wear one. As for "worthless" masks, that is not correct. If someone coughs or sneezes into even a poor quality mask that will absorb considerably more aerosols than none at all.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 48m Cases are going to start to fall within the next 2-3 weeks. Once they start to fall, they are going to drop, over time, by some 30% or more from their current level. Cases this winter are going to be lower than now, not higher.
===
Pretty frank prediction there.
There is a (conspiracy?) theory going around that iSage and the Zerocovidians* are going hard now to try to get restrictions as they are aware of a likely drop around the corner.
The thinking goes, if they don't get the restrictions now, they never will, but if they get the restrictions now, they can claim credit for the drop.
Probably baloney, but it's a theory I keep encountering.
Its a last, desperate throw of the dice.
Or they're just unthinking morons with a one-tracked mind still pushing the same and only agenda they've ever had.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 48m Cases are going to start to fall within the next 2-3 weeks. Once they start to fall, they are going to drop, over time, by some 30% or more from their current level. Cases this winter are going to be lower than now, not higher.
===
Pretty frank prediction there.
I'm totally confident that cases are going to start falling imminently. They're doing so already in some regions: East Midlands,North West, Yorkshire, West Midlands. They just haven't fed through to the seven day averages yet.
It can't be emphasised enough that the national figures are made up of regional figures, which in turn are made up of dozens and dozens of localised waves. The virus hits somewhere - there are a lot of cases - then there is nowhere for it to go and it declines. Everywhere that was high a few weeks ago is now declining. Of course, even within local authorities there are lots of little waves going on.
I'm less confident in what will be happening in four weeks time. I mean, it makes sense to me that they'll go down and stay lower than now. But in the past the path of the virus hasn't moved in straight lines. I'm mildly optimistic that they'll be lower, but not totally confident.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:
Smokers Drinkers Anyone who does drugs Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear Anyone injured committing a crime Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
Absolutely. This needs hammering home. Dear god what has happened so that we end up with you, me and @kini in agreement but this is where we are. Surely that *is* end of days.
NEW: Veteran Labour politician Frank Field says he has changed his mind on assisted dying because he is dying himself. He has just spent a period in a hospice.
Baroness Meacher has just read out a statement on his behalf supporting the assisted dying bill in the House of Lords.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
From later in the thread; Yesterday's reported figure would have been 16,402 not 44,363. We'd have saved a million cases in the meantime (1.83m not 2.88m), so maybe a couple of thousand deaths? (depending on what you assume about IFR and case ascertainment). Of course, interventions come with a cost. Some people will tell you that any intervention that would have removed one infectious contact out of every twenty would be tantamount to a police state and that life wouldn't be worth living, and that is a perfectly consistent worldview. But I think it's also worth understanding what the effect of relatively small changes in behaviour compounded over a few months could have been.
Saved over a million cases translates as over a million fewer with acquired immunity.
Which would have meant over a million being more vulnerable to covid during the winter.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 48m Cases are going to start to fall within the next 2-3 weeks. Once they start to fall, they are going to drop, over time, by some 30% or more from their current level. Cases this winter are going to be lower than now, not higher.
===
Pretty frank prediction there.
There is a (conspiracy?) theory going around that iSage and the Zerocovidians* are going hard now to try to get restrictions as they are aware of a likely drop around the corner.
The thinking goes, if they don't get the restrictions now, they never will, but if they get the restrictions now, they can claim credit for the drop.
Probably baloney, but it's a theory I keep encountering.
The theory is of course entirely sound. There is no control group of another England which pursues a different path to be able to compare.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:
Smokers Drinkers Anyone who does drugs Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear Anyone injured committing a crime Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
I remain of the view that masking up in Parliament is not necessary. The MPs are at work and like much work in the knowledge economy it involves reading facial expressions. They know who is there, they all take LFT tests, and track and trace is easy to do. It is totally different from being on a packed train with a loads of people you don't know at rush hour, including those who are not interested in the virus. The tories need to explain this to people and stick with it.
NEW: Veteran Labour politician Frank Field says he has changed his mind on assisted dying because he is dying himself. He has just spent a period in a hospice.
Baroness Meacher has just read out a statement on his behalf supporting the assisted dying bill in the House of Lords.
NEW: Veteran Labour politician Frank Field says he has changed his mind on assisted dying because he is dying himself. He has just spent a period in a hospice.
Baroness Meacher has just read out a statement on his behalf supporting the assisted dying bill in the House of Lords.
I believe that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. I will not be voting for a party at the next general election if most of its MPs are wearing masks in the House of Commons chamber.
Indeed, legally mask wearing is personal choice now everywhere apart from the London Underground.
If you have been double vaccinated that is the main thing
The problem is that the intersection of the Venn diagram of those who wear masks and those who haven't been vaccinated is likely to be very small.
Yes, I'm all for personal choice on things that only affect me. Should I take a male lover? Change my cereal to Shreddies? Vote SWP or UKIP? Commit suicide? None of your business. However, the right to enter a crowded space and choose not to minimise the risk of infecting other people? There, you have a legitimate interest and a right to lay down rules on what I can do.
I would only make mask wearing mandatory in crowded spaces and public transport for those who have not been double vaccinated
If you are double jabbed you can a) still be carrying covid b) be asymptomatic and c) pass it to others.
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
And why do you think asymptomatic infection among the fully vaccinated is a bad thing ?
Its how we're going to achieve herd immunity.
Instead of thinking about 'cases' we should be thinking of how many people are acquiring immunity every day.
You might want to look up a bit of the science on "herd immunity". Besides, I would rather the government does not go for lockdowns again in the future. If that means I need to wear a mask for my very occasional visit to Tesco for the next year to avoid that then so be it.
If you want to wear a mask then you are free to do so.
But my advice would be to wear a proper mask rather than the worthless ones most people wear and even then often wrongly.
Thanks for your unsolicited advice. As I spent part of my early career working in operating rooms I do know how to wear one. As for "worthless" masks, that is not correct. If someone coughs or sneezes into even a poor quality mask that will absorb considerably more aerosols than none at all.
Yes but if you're going to bother to wear a mask, why not get a good quality one?
When Mike first raised this subject a few weeks ago, the site abounded with posters accusing mask wearers of 'virtue signalling' and proclaiming that 'if you can't stop wearing a mask now you never will'. Will those posters take this opportunity to apologize for their impetuousness?
The Opposition MPs *are* virtue signalling. They are doing differently that they did at conference.
Rees-Mogg skewered it quite nicely, when Thangam Debbonaire put on a Parliamentary Fashion Show.
OK. Labour were tits by behaving differently at conference as they do in the Commons. The Tories are tits by behaving differently one day to the next with a compare and contrast between PMQs Wednesday and the UQ Thursday after Javed's "oh right yeah" response at the Wednesday teatime presser.
There are no party political points to score here.
I am quite content, these days, to point the finger and laugh at the Labour Party with the rest of PB. However, a stunt, or no stunt by the Labour Party in the HoC on Wednesday, who knows? Either way the Tories were caught with their trousers down, and their masks off.
Let us assume for one moment it was the cynical stunt that the PB Tories assume it to be, can you imagine the hysterical laughter if Johnson had executed such a jolly jape and made the Opposition look foolish?
For what it is worth, I can't imagine Starmer's Labour Party having the wit to pull off such an event.
Sure! The nice thing about having no skin in the game with either party is to call out stupidity both from the parties and from their fanbois.
I agree with this. Although sadly that slight smugness is tempered by the fact that I would extend that contempt to all parties not just the two main ones which does rather leave one wondering where to put ones vote.
Because film makers want a "real" muzzle flash, they use real guns, with blanks. Anything that gets stuck in the barrel becomes a projectile.
We were mostly restricted to .38 and .303 blank firing weapons at CCF when I was at boarding school so we used to fire pencils at each other propelled by .38 blanks. To this day I have a substantial piece of 2B lead lodged in my left forearm.
*The* rule that was enforced in CCF was that no gun was to be pointed at anyone, in any state whatsoever. We were told that if you did that, you would be expelled.
Mind you, the spoil sports also denied repeated requests to get the Boyes rifle out of the gun room.
Never, never let your gun Pointed be at anyone. That it may unloaded be Matters not the least to me.
Isn’t that always the first rule of the gun club, that it’s never to be pointed at anyone, for any reason?
If you’re shooting a movie where a gun needs to be waved around, you’d surely expect to see at least two armourers handle the weapon, to double-check that the blanks are indeed blanks, and that the weapon isn’t about to kill someone.
Not the first fatal film set gun accident, and sadly not likely to be the last. Feel very sorry for Mr Baldwin.
It will be a shame if we are dropping research (again) while our rivals and competitors increase theirs. And it is not as if there is not a pandemic which shows the importance of earlier blue skies research.
NEW: Veteran Labour politician Frank Field says he has changed his mind on assisted dying because he is dying himself. He has just spent a period in a hospice.
Baroness Meacher has just read out a statement on his behalf supporting the assisted dying bill in the House of Lords.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:
Smokers Drinkers Anyone who does drugs Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear Anyone injured committing a crime Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
The top four are more often than not chronic, difficult issues to solve. Sports are generally positive lifestyle choices, unless you want heart disease rates to increase, and the above four they should never exclude treatment. Should employers be responsible for the costs of care if this happens ? Perhaps. Perhaps the NHS should seek to recover costs from insurers when this is the case too. Prison/fines/records that make employment more difficult are the punishments for this Vehicle travel already has a range of punishments, there are currently few external consequences for being unvaccinated in the UK.
Vaccination is far easier than the first four, the fifth point has benefits, there's externalities attached to your seventh and eighth points and there's a debate to be help over 6 though certainly noone should be denied treatment because for instance their employer didn't provide them with correct PPE !
I remain of the view that masking up in Parliament is not necessary. The MPs are at work and like much work in the knowledge economy it involves reading facial expressions. They know who is there, they all take LFT tests, and track and trace is easy to do. It is totally different from being on a packed train with a loads of people you don't know at rush hour, including those who are not interested in the virus. The tories need to explain this to people and stick with it.
It is necessary to put the right message out to the country that mask wearing is still a Good Thing if you can do it.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:
Smokers Drinkers Anyone who does drugs Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear Anyone injured committing a crime Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
Absolutely. This needs hammering home. Dear god what has happened so that we end up with you, me and @kini in agreement but this is where we are. Surely that *is* end of days.
No it doesn't. If the equivalent of not wearing a seatbelt makes you feel unshackled and truly alive, you have terminal sadness issues. Like the people who put One Life - Live It stickers in their shitty series 1 Discoveries
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:
Smokers Drinkers Anyone who does drugs Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear Anyone injured committing a crime Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
Good post Richard, and in principle you are correct. However, treatment is rationed in some areas, such as those who persist in smoking and those that refuse to take measures to lose weight. Refusing a vaccine for no good reason other than because you read a conspiracy theory on Facebook might be considered contributory negligence and a reason to restrict access to places where you put others at risk, i.e. hospitals. It is harder to deal with this under the NHS because we have fewer "levers" as they do in countries that have universal healthcare but are insurance led. In such countries I can see the likelihood of such measures being introduced.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:
Smokers Drinkers Anyone who does drugs Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear Anyone injured committing a crime Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
The problem is though we are withholding treatment from people. One way or another treatment is getting withheld from someone - if operations are cancelled and if people are denied beds, or put on waiting lists, then we are rationing treatment.
And in a way the only way the NHS can exist is to ration treatment because the only way to ultimately end someone's demands on the NHS is for them to die. Otherwise it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that the better the NHS is at providing care, the longer it postpones death, the more ailments someone accrues and the more demands they will then place on the NHS.
So the question isn't "should the NHS not offer treatment to", the ugly question nobody wants to ask is "who or what shouldn't the NHS treat".
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:
Smokers Drinkers Anyone who does drugs Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear Anyone injured committing a crime Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
Absolutely. This needs hammering home. Dear god what has happened so that we end up with you, me and @kini in agreement but this is where we are. Surely that *is* end of days.
No it doesn't. If the equivalent of not wearing a seatbelt makes you feel unshackled and truly alive, you have terminal sadness issues. Like the people who put One Life - Live It stickers in their shitty series 1 Discoveries
Was not the point of Richard's (and, tbf, yesterday many of my) posts. If you start rationing medical treatment you are in a world of dystopia and on a slippery slope.
It will be a shame if we are dropping research (again) while our rivals and competitors increase theirs. And it is not as if there is not a pandemic which shows the importance of earlier blue skies research.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:
Smokers Drinkers Anyone who does drugs Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear Anyone injured committing a crime Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
Absolutely. This needs hammering home. Dear god what has happened so that we end up with you, me and @kini in agreement but this is where we are. Surely that *is* end of days.
No it doesn't. If the equivalent of not wearing a seatbelt makes you feel unshackled and truly alive, you have terminal sadness issues. Like the people who put One Life - Live It stickers in their shitty series 1 Discoveries
Was not the point of Richard's (and, tbf, yesterday many of my) posts. If you start rationing medical treatment you are in a world of dystopia and on a slippery slope.
We already ration treatment.
If I was to guess the first date the NHS rationed treatment I would say 5 July 1948.
I note the French have got their cases down to around 6,000 and double jabbed up ~ 70% of 12 - 17.
I quite like their approach of actively making antivaxxers lives a complete misery.
Yep - sadly, the only way to get antivaxxers to take the vaccine is to make their day to day life impossible until they give up and get vaccinated.
The problem is to do that without inconveniencing the vaccinated.
The alternative strategy is to let the anti-vaxxers all get infected.
That approach leads to maximum incovenience for the vaccinated... Especially if you have a need to use the health service.
The answer is to stop the anti-vaxxers getting NHS treatment.
Keep hearing this. It's people expressing frustration rather than a viable option. There is (absolutely and rightly) zero chance of it happening.
Yet there is absolutely and wrongly increasing waiting lists of other required medical treatment because resources are being used on anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
So by that metric we should also be withholding treatment from:
Smokers Drinkers Anyone who does drugs Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear Anyone injured committing a crime Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
The problem is though we are withholding treatment from people. One way or another treatment is getting withheld from someone - if operations are cancelled and if people are denied beds, or put on waiting lists, then we are rationing treatment.
And in a way the only way the NHS can exist is to ration treatment because the only way to ultimately end someone's demands on the NHS is for them to die. Otherwise it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that the better the NHS is at providing care, the longer it postpones death, the more ailments someone accrues and the more demands they will then place on the NHS.
So the question isn't "should the NHS not offer treatment to", the ugly question nobody wants to ask is "who or what shouldn't the NHS treat".
As per my post yesterday, if we live in a society wherein 5m people, say, decide not to be jabbed then that is our society. It is then beholden upon our government to accommodate that 5m.
Or make it illegal not to be vaxxed and even then it is illegal not to wear a seatbelt but if someone turns up at A&E after a car smash no one asks whether they were wearing one or not.
We are stuck with people making perfectly legal choices and expecting, rightly, our health service to accommodate them.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 48m Cases are going to start to fall within the next 2-3 weeks. Once they start to fall, they are going to drop, over time, by some 30% or more from their current level. Cases this winter are going to be lower than now, not higher.
===
Pretty frank prediction there.
There is a (conspiracy?) theory going around that iSage and the Zerocovidians* are going hard now to try to get restrictions as they are aware of a likely drop around the corner.
The thinking goes, if they don't get the restrictions now, they never will, but if they get the restrictions now, they can claim credit for the drop.
Probably baloney, but it's a theory I keep encountering.
Well I'm sure that IS true. But the extent to which I can get angry about it is tempered by the fact that 'going hard to try to get new restrictions' has been their only tactic for the last 18 months, regardless of circumstance. It's frustrating that they're doing it, but you may as well get annoyed at the river for flowing out to sea.
Meanwhile, 95-yr old woman "back at her desk" after hospital check ups.
Been described as "in good spirits". That generally means you're completely fucked. cf Phil the Greek.
When the Princess of Hearts was in that car crash doctors described her condition as "grave" and I said oh well that's ok then she'll be fine. To which a doctor friend of mine said no, "grave" means it's all over, might already be.
The clue is in the word, surely ?
Well I hadn't thought it literally relates to the grave but I'm sure someone will enlighten me.
Grave: the noun meaning burial place, and the adjective meaning serious; appear to etymologically separate.
The noun is from Proto-Germanic grafa, meaning ditch or grave. This is the same source that gives us 'engrave', to scratch in.
The adjective is from Old French greve, meaning terrible or dreadful. This derived from Latin gravis, meaning weighty or serious. And where we get gravity from.
Comments
(*In which I partook tbh)
The thought of Nicholas Witchell wringing his hands in his obsequious, cringey way all day and every day for weeks and weeks on end is just too much to bear. There's something about him that really gives me the creeps. If for no other reason, I hope HMQ makes it to 120.
I find the assault on the rights of their own citizens - denial of basic healthcare FFS - to be very disappointing. I'd say shocking, but I've used the word once today already.
They might as well be escorting them to vaccine stations at gunpoint.
Hardly surprising that it has taken 60 years to apologise for the massacre of 100 peaceful demonstators by police promised impunity on the streets of Paris in 1961, if respect for citizens' autonomy is so poor.
Would give the Conservatives 326 seats under the new boundaries and Boris would still have a majority of 2 with Labour up to 241 seats
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=37&LAB=33&LIB=9&Reform=2&Green=10&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=22.3&SCOTLAB=18.3&SCOTLIB=6.3&SCOTReform=0.7&SCOTGreen=0.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48.3&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
And the whole vaccination for 12-15s was a minor thing in any case compared with the importance of boosters.
So what is there to apologise for ?
We also did not need vaccine passports to have a fantastic first two parts of the programme. The problem is not caused by lack of state tracking and social/occupational ostracism, it's caused by a strange lack of follow-through with the boosters and a perverse (much commented on here) reluctance and faffing about when it came to vaccinating teenagers.
Mind you I am a fan of the theory that he woz robbed, she was really her daughter.
And yes, dreadful little man...
As the plague is almost certainly passed via aerosol (not via deodorants silly people!) , then mask wearing should be encouraged at least, and mandated where necessary until the infection rate is considerably lower than it is today IMO.
These arguments were being made when we were not vaccinated.
Ditto the beauty industry with their spurious comparisons.
It does seem as if the previously rock-solid Tory vote of 40-45% is finally beginning to wane.
Its how we're going to achieve herd immunity.
Instead of thinking about 'cases' we should be thinking of how many people are acquiring immunity every day.
Two other observations;
1 C+4 is pretty low for YouGov, and (as a bit of fun) would probably be "Conservatives in office, but not in power" at a real election.
2 So much depends on who is reading the Lab/Green split correctly.
Why do you think it is right that anti-vaxxers get treatment ahead of the medical requirements of others ?
For much of the population, vaxxed or young, Covid is indeed like a bad case of the flu. Very few hospitalisations, fewer (any? I'm sure there must be) deaths.
So the "impact on others" is for a 20-yr old to be laid low with flu-like symptoms (or, as in the case of my nephew, a hangover, he wasn't sure which it was - Covid or alcohol).
And for this you want to do what? Put in rules? Well of course it's the market they can do what they want but you are then saying they have been irresponsible by not doing so whereas it's entirely sensible.
Rees-Mogg skewered it quite nicely, when Thangam Debbonaire put on a Parliamentary Fashion Show.
https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1451142424202555396
https://twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1451441581853192220?s=20
From later in the thread;
Yesterday's reported figure would have been 16,402 not 44,363. We'd have saved a million cases in the meantime (1.83m not 2.88m), so maybe a couple of thousand deaths? (depending on what you assume about IFR and case ascertainment). Of course, interventions come with a cost. Some people will tell you that any intervention that would have removed one infectious contact out of every twenty would be tantamount to a police state and that life wouldn't be worth living, and that is a perfectly consistent worldview. But I think it's also worth understanding what the effect of relatively small changes in behaviour compounded over a few months could have been.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39.3&LAB=35.1&LIB=8.8&Reform=2.4&Green=6.4&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=22.3&SCOTLAB=18.3&SCOTLIB=6.3&SCOTReform=0.7&SCOTGreen=0.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48.3&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
I am a Tory not a libertarian
I repeat a point I keep making - we have always known that a proportion of the public will not take the vaccine. In the event, take-up rates are significantly higher than most predicted.
The one thing the media are doing is making it more likely people will use masks more, especially in enclosed spaces but also in their own actions to safeguard themselves. Though it is clear a considerable number of people wearing masks, either do know how or are playing lip service to them
Certainly here in North Wales there is little evidence of compliance and indeed Wales, and Scotland, are not faring any better than England in this rise in infections
I am pleased Boris is holding firm at this stage and it has been noted that Labour are not calling for plan B either
The delay in vaccinating children was all down to the JCVI where it is recognised they were more interested in sending our vaccines abroad than protecting our children and I believe they should be disbanded
Walter Peck: My name is Peck.
Peter: Or you could accept the fact that this city is headed for a disaster of Biblical proportion.
Mayor: What do you mean "Biblical?"
Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor. Real "Wrath of God"-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky, rivers and seas boiling ...
Egon: ... forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos ...
Winston: ... the dead rising from the grave ...
Peter: ... human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria!
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/
The Tories are tits by behaving differently one day to the next with a compare and contrast between PMQs Wednesday and the UQ Thursday after Javed's "oh right yeah" response at the Wednesday teatime presser.
There are no party political points to score here.
Whether the people having to wait for treatment because the NHS has decided to use those resources on anti-vaxxers will agree with the NHS's choice is the question.
So literally vote Green, get Blue
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1451221512300552193
But my advice would be to wear a proper mask rather than the worthless ones most people wear and even then often wrongly.
·
48m
Cases are going to start to fall within the next 2-3 weeks. Once they start to fall, they are going to drop, over time, by some 30% or more from their current level. Cases this winter are going to be lower than now, not higher.
===
Pretty frank prediction there.
Let us assume for one moment it was the cynical stunt that the PB Tories assume it to be, can you imagine the hysterical laughter if Johnson had executed such a jolly jape and made the Opposition look foolish?
For what it is worth, I can't imagine Starmer's Labour Party having the wit to pull off such an event.
There will be trouble if the lives of the vaccinated are restricted solely because of the refusal of a minority to accept the protection of immunisation from the vaccine.
The immediate need to increase capacity to clear the waiting lists, is best left to the market to sort out rather than government. No-one mentioned ‘cheap’ immigrant labour, people should be paid the going rate for the job no matter where they come from.
Smokers
Drinkers
Anyone who does drugs
Anyone whose BMI is over the recommended level
Anyone injured whilst undertaking a dangerous sport
Anyone injured in an incident where they had not properly safety assessed and were not wearing the proper protective gear
Anyone injured committing a crime
Anyone injured in a car accident where they were not wearing a seat belt or were speeding.
Well that should eliminate about 80% or more of the entire population and leave medical treatment for those who may be alive but have never actually lived.
Peak oil and the low-carbon energy transition: A net-energy perspective
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261921011673?via=ihub
Since the Pennsylvania oil rush of 1859, petroleum has quickly become the dominant fuel of industrial society. The “Peak Oil” debate focused on whether or not there was an impending production crunch of cheap oil, and whilst there have been no shortages across the globe, a shift from conventional to unconventional oil liquids has occurred. One aspect of this shift was not fully explored in previous discussions–although of some importance in a low-carbon energy transition context: the extent to which the net-energy supply of oil products is affected by the use of lower quality energy sources. To fill this gap, this paper incorporates standard EROI (energy-return-on-investment) estimates and dynamic decline functions in the GlobalShift all-liquids bottom-up model on a global scale. We determine the energy necessary for the production of oil liquids (including direct and indirect energy costs) to represent today 15.5% of the energy production of oil liquids, and growing at an exponential rate: by 2050, a proportion equivalent to half of the gross energy output will be engulfed in its own production. Our findings thus question the feasibility of a global and fast low-carbon energy transition. We therefore suggest an urgent return of the peak oil debate, but including net-energy issues and avoiding a narrow focus on ‘peak supply’ vs ‘peak demand’.
The thinking goes, if they don't get the restrictions now, they never will, but if they get the restrictions now, they can claim credit for the drop.
Probably baloney, but it's a theory I keep encountering.
https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1451468675039510528?s=21
Or they're just unthinking morons with a one-tracked mind still pushing the same and only agenda they've ever had.
Either works.
It can't be emphasised enough that the national figures are made up of regional figures, which in turn are made up of dozens and dozens of localised waves. The virus hits somewhere - there are a lot of cases - then there is nowhere for it to go and it declines. Everywhere that was high a few weeks ago is now declining. Of course, even within local authorities there are lots of little waves going on.
I'm less confident in what will be happening in four weeks time. I mean, it makes sense to me that they'll go down and stay lower than now. But in the past the path of the virus hasn't moved in straight lines. I'm mildly optimistic that they'll be lower, but not totally confident.
NEW: Veteran Labour politician Frank Field says he has changed his mind on assisted dying because he is dying himself. He has just spent a period in a hospice.
Baroness Meacher has just read out a statement on his behalf supporting the assisted dying bill in the House of Lords.
https://twitter.com/tony_diver/status/1451480499617140744?s=21
Which would have meant over a million being more vulnerable to covid during the winter.
If you’re shooting a movie where a gun needs to be waved around, you’d surely expect to see at least two armourers handle the weapon, to double-check that the blanks are indeed blanks, and that the weapon isn’t about to kill someone.
Not the first fatal film set gun accident, and sadly not likely to be the last. Feel very sorry for Mr Baldwin.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-research-and-invention-agency-aria-statement-of-policy-intent/advanced-research-and-invention-agency-aria-policy-statement
It will be a shame if we are dropping research (again) while our rivals and competitors increase theirs. And it is not as if there is not a pandemic which shows the importance of earlier blue skies research.
Sports are generally positive lifestyle choices, unless you want heart disease rates to increase, and the above four they should never exclude treatment.
Should employers be responsible for the costs of care if this happens ? Perhaps. Perhaps the NHS should seek to recover costs from insurers when this is the case too.
Prison/fines/records that make employment more difficult are the punishments for this
Vehicle travel already has a range of punishments, there are currently few external consequences for being unvaccinated in the UK.
Vaccination is far easier than the first four, the fifth point has benefits, there's externalities attached to your seventh and eighth points and there's a debate to be help over 6 though certainly noone should be denied treatment because for instance their employer didn't provide them with correct PPE !
And in a way the only way the NHS can exist is to ration treatment because the only way to ultimately end someone's demands on the NHS is for them to die. Otherwise it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that the better the NHS is at providing care, the longer it postpones death, the more ailments someone accrues and the more demands they will then place on the NHS.
So the question isn't "should the NHS not offer treatment to", the ugly question nobody wants to ask is "who or what shouldn't the NHS treat".
HS2 Eastern branch
Northern Rail
ARIA
etc
If I was to guess the first date the NHS rationed treatment I would say 5 July 1948.
Or make it illegal not to be vaxxed and even then it is illegal not to wear a seatbelt but if someone turns up at A&E after a car smash no one asks whether they were wearing one or not.
We are stuck with people making perfectly legal choices and expecting, rightly, our health service to accommodate them.
The noun is from Proto-Germanic grafa, meaning ditch or grave. This is the same source that gives us 'engrave', to scratch in.
The adjective is from Old French greve, meaning terrible or dreadful. This derived from Latin gravis, meaning weighty or serious. And where we get gravity from.