The UK set to be the first where people are vaccinated – politicalbetting.com

System

The UK set to be the first where people are vaccinated – politicalbetting.com

? Exclusive: the UK is set to become the first country to approve a Covid-19 vaccine. MHRA is expected to green light the BioNTech and Pfizer vaccine within days – ahead of US/EU. First jabs could be come as soon as Dec 7.Latest with @donatopmancini https://t.co/X0BxtkC3Ve

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

First

TheScreamingEagles

According to The Times it'll be diabetics who get priority over oldies for the vaccine.

Turns out being a diabetic does have a bonus.

RobD

Finally, some good news.

TheScreamingEagles

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Gaussian

So will people:
a) Be extra careful because it would be really stupid to suffer from the virus just before getting the vaccine.
b) Throw caution to the wind because the vaccine is on the way.

My money is on b.

alex_

This is seriously scary

https://twitter.com/RepDonBeyer/status/1332402560842522630

TheScreamingEagles

alex_ said:

This is seriously scary

https://twitter.com/RepDonBeyer/status/1332402560842522630

Indeed, coupled with this, I think this is an admission that the legal route ain't going to work.

https://twitter.com/newsmax/status/1332744397054763010

IshmaelZ

Gaussian said:

So will people:
a) Be extra careful because it would be really stupid to suffer from the virus just before getting the vaccine.
b) Throw caution to the wind because the vaccine is on the way.

My money is on b.

You think they think it works as a cure?

Might be right.

Omnium

RobD said:

Finally, some good news.

TSE is likely to be fuming after you've messed up his first three posts on a thread. You may as well have stuck surreptitious pineapple on his pizza.

@TSE
I'd not barge to the front of the queue (nor any reason that I'd be there), but I'd be more than happy to be in the advance guard of recipients. There is a bit of a risk of course, but in this and other things we are all in it together.

AlwaysSinging

Gaussian said:

So will people:
a) Be extra careful because it would be really stupid to suffer from the virus just before getting the vaccine.
b) Throw caution to the wind because the vaccine is on the way.

My money is on b.

There's definitely going to be a tricky period of time between widespread vaccination starting (the first doses not of course counting as widespread) and herd immunity levels. I imagine the authorities will have to start turning a blind eye to restrictions.

I wish I could rely on my fellow citizens to behave responsibly but...

--AS

TheScreamingEagles

Weird seeing someone called John Adams tweeting stuff like this.

https://twitter.com/adamseconomics/status/1332739687060963328

I suspect the more famous John Adams would be appalled by stuff like this.

DougSeal

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

YBarddCwsc

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

Pagan2

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

I like the fact russian science is pragmatic. The usa spent millions developing a pen for the space program that could write in zero g....russian scientists said use a pencil

alex_

TheScreamingEagles said:

alex_ said:

This is seriously scary

https://twitter.com/RepDonBeyer/status/1332402560842522630

Indeed, coupled with this, I think this is an admission that the legal route ain't going to work.

https://twitter.com/newsmax/status/1332744397054763010

I think the plan to keep Trump as President is pretty much a complete dead end. But he can do ENORMOUS damage to a new administration. The suggestion from the article is that he is giving himself the power to fire virtually every currently protected Civil Service employees (and give protection to many of his political appointments). Once fired these people can't be rehired with the stroke of a pen, because there are all sorts of rules about appointing to Govt jobs that would take ages to go through.

TheScreamingEagles

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

I suspect we really need to work on that near 50% who prefer to wait.

YouGov haven't published the tables yet but if that 50% is the oldies then the government/NHS/AZ really need to reassure them and have better PR on this.

Omnium

Gaussian said:

So will people:
a) Be extra careful because it would be really stupid to suffer from the virus just before getting the vaccine.
b) Throw caution to the wind because the vaccine is on the way.

My money is on b.

Mine too, but I have been carefully allowing my stupider relatives (Omnium low bar notwithstanding) to arrive at conclusion 'a'.

DougSeal

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

I suspect we really need to work on that near 50% who prefer to wait.

YouGov haven't published the tables yet but if that 50% is the oldies then the government/NHS/AZ really need to reassure them and have better PR on this.

By the time it's ready for the masses to get it they may have actually had time to repeat their trial with the modified dose.

Fysics_Teacher

Pagan2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

I like the fact russian science is pragmatic. The usa spent millions developing a pen for the space program that could write in zero g....russian scientists said use a pencil

Not true I’m afraid. Normal pencils are a really bad idea in space, and the Space Pen was developed by a private company that made much more than the development costs back by selling their pens to the public: I had one once and it was very good.

Edit: Snopes on this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-write-stuff/

TheScreamingEagles

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

DougSeal

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

I suspect we really need to work on that near 50% who prefer to wait.

YouGov haven't published the tables yet but if that 50% is the oldies then the government/NHS/AZ really need to reassure them and have better PR on this.

I seriously think they will all be lumped in as a "Covid-Jab" - BioNTech and Pfizer are being rolled out first and if that goes okay people people won't be fussy.

Pagan2

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

While not an antivaxxer by any means I am in the 50% that wait category. Maybe because I grew up when thalidomide is a thing. I think someone could quite probably make a case that the accelerated testing on the vaccine gave them doubts about its safety. I believe the normal time to introduce a new vaccine is 7 years and a lot of that is addressing safety issues. As a layman on this I therefore assume that 7 years testing has a reason for it rather than just a number plucked out of thin air.

I would suggest a company could quite rightly say you can't come into the office without a vaccination but would be on stickier ground firing you if you can work from home just because you took a wait and see approach

Also on the ethical vegan thing is the vaccine not tested on animals?

TheScreamingEagles

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

I suspect we really need to work on that near 50% who prefer to wait.

YouGov haven't published the tables yet but if that 50% is the oldies then the government/NHS/AZ really need to reassure them and have better PR on this.

I seriously think they will all be lumped in as a "Covid-Jab" - BioNTech and Pfizer are being rolled out first and if that goes okay people people won't be fussy.

One of the things our behavioural science chaps has flagged up as a potential problem for vaccine uptake is that the government might shred its reputation like no other government in a few weeks time.

If sustained No Deal is a disaster despite what Boris Johnson and the rest of the government have said about it being fine the public might be wary on taking up vaccines that the government says will be fine.

SandyRentool

Any truth in the rumour that PPE graduates will be in the first tranche for the vaccine?

After all, we've been hearing how important PPE is for the past 9 months.

TheScreamingEagles

SandyRentool said:

Any truth in the rumour that PPE graduates will be in the first tranche for the vaccine?

After all, we've been hearing how important PPE is for the past 9 months.

Only if they have diabetes or work for the NHS/care/emergency services.

DougSeal

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

And even if it is held to be protected philosophical belief, there won't be direct discrimination against anti-vaxxers (e.g. firing people just because they are anti-vaxxers) but some will allege an employer's PCP of requiring a shot is indirectly discriminatory. But indirect discrimination is easily objectively justified on the grounds you detail.

DecrepiterJohnL

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

I'm not sure the Russian one has been rolled out to the whole population yet. I suppose in the global race, it depends what you call a roll-out as opposed to a large scale trial.

alex_

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

Maybe some people will develop a ethical objection to the vaccine as a justification to embed their permanent right to WFH.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

I suspect we really need to work on that near 50% who prefer to wait.

YouGov haven't published the tables yet but if that 50% is the oldies then the government/NHS/AZ really need to reassure them and have better PR on this.

I seriously think they will all be lumped in as a "Covid-Jab" - BioNTech and Pfizer are being rolled out first and if that goes okay people people won't be fussy.

One of the things our behavioural science chaps has flagged up as a potential problem for vaccine uptake is that the government might shred its reputation like no other government in a few weeks time.

If sustained No Deal is a disaster despite what Boris Johnson and the rest of the government have said about it being fine the public might be wary on taking up vaccines that the government says will be fine.

This government’s reputation is for incompetence, dishonesty and corruption.

It is unlikely a no-deal disaster will change that for the better. Nor is it easy to see how it could make it much worse.

Omnium

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

rottenborough

SandyRentool said:

Any truth in the rumour that PPE graduates will be in the first tranche for the vaccine?

After all, we've been hearing how important PPE is for the past 9 months.

Haven't all the PPE graduates already had the virus as they all work in Westminster?

Nigelb

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

If you think we’re overly nationalistic (and I agree with you here), what do you make of the Russian state ?

TheScreamingEagles

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

DecrepiterJohnL

A lot of the more obvious value has been taken since this morning. Current Betfair prices:-

Biden 1.04
Democrats 1.04
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.05
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.05
Trump ECV 210-239 1.09
Biden ECV 300-329 1.09
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.06
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.07
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.02

AZ Dem 1.05
GA Dem 1.05
MI Dem 1.04
NV Dem 1.05
PA Dem 1.05
WI Dem 1.05

Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.11
Trump exit date 2021 1.08

Omnium

rottenborough said:

SandyRentool said:

Any truth in the rumour that PPE graduates will be in the first tranche for the vaccine?

After all, we've been hearing how important PPE is for the past 9 months.

Haven't all the PPE graduates already had the virus as they all work in Westminster?

When you say 'work in Westminster'....

eristdoof

Pagan2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

I like the fact russian science is pragmatic. The usa spent millions developing a pen for the space program that could write in zero g....russian scientists said use a pencil

You know this is a debunkt story although not quite a myth. The NASA astronauts also used pencils in the beginning, the problem is that pencils break and in zero gravity a small sharp broken pencil lead floating through the spaceship can be a problem, not least because graphite is a conducter and can short circuit things.

A private company developed the space pen or whatever it's called at their own cost, and then sold them to NASA once they had developed it, just like many other companies who sell NASA space equipment. The reason NASA bought the product was because it was safer than using pencils.

Carnyx

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

There's the SNP chap who works in the MoD and was penalised because of his politics. Which turn out to be protected, at least in this case. This gives the name/date - I'm not saying it is the best account.

https://www.addleshawgoddard.com/en/insights/insights-briefings/2019/employment/employment-up-to-date-april-2019/mceleny-v-mod/

Pagan2

Fysics_Teacher said:

Pagan2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

I like the fact russian science is pragmatic. The usa spent millions developing a pen for the space program that could write in zero g....russian scientists said use a pencil

Not true I’m afraid. Normal pencils are a really bad idea in space, and the Space Pen was developed by a private company that made much more than the development costs back by selling their pens to the public: I had one once and it was very good.

Edit: Snopes on this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-write-stuff/

Thanks for correcting me. I hadnt seen it refuted before. However not sure that confirms an issue with pencils as they were certainly used and no mention of them ever creating an actual problem rather than the theoretical one mentioned

alex_

Is Wales going to have to cancel their Christmas?

DougSeal

Pagan2 said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

While not an antivaxxer by any means I am in the 50% that wait category. Maybe because I grew up when thalidomide is a thing. I think someone could quite probably make a case that the accelerated testing on the vaccine gave them doubts about its safety. I believe the normal time to introduce a new vaccine is 7 years and a lot of that is addressing safety issues. As a layman on this I therefore assume that 7 years testing has a reason for it rather than just a number plucked out of thin air.

I would suggest a company could quite rightly say you can't come into the office without a vaccination but would be on stickier ground firing you if you can work from home just because you took a wait and see approach

Also on the ethical vegan thing is the vaccine not tested on animals?

I don't know if the vaccine is tested on animals but even if it were it would only be indirectly discriminatory and would therefore justifiable. It's only direct discrimination (e.g. "we're firing you because you're a woman/asian/gay/Catholic etc etc") that can't be justified - except for age discrimination where you can theoretically kick out oldies just because of age if you can show there is a need to make room for younger workers, but even that is difficult.

YBarddCwsc

One of my all-time favourite scientists was an anti-vaxxer.

Alfred Russell Wallace, biologist, socialist. The wealthy Charles Darwin's impoverished competitor.

Wallace argued that both liberty and science need to be taken into account, but that liberty is more important than science.

It is a brave argument.

SandyRentool

rottenborough said:

SandyRentool said:

Any truth in the rumour that PPE graduates will be in the first tranche for the vaccine?

After all, we've been hearing how important PPE is for the past 9 months.

Haven't all the PPE graduates already had the virus as they all work in Westminster?

Some of us have got proper jobs!

TheScreamingEagles

alex_ said:

Is Wales going to have to cancel their Christmas?

Nah, the Welsh are used to losing to England, cancelling Christmas would be a staggering overreaction.

Omnium

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

I'd guess that's tricky. If you posted from within the workplace fair enough, but if you posted elsewhere and din't make a connection with your company. The employer would have to make an argument that this counted as within the workplace - and I think that's the line. (There are almost certainly experts on this available on PB, and they probably are avoiding any comment - I don't comment on my personal specialist area - and the streets are not so well swept as a result)

Fysics_Teacher

Pagan2 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Pagan2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

I like the fact russian science is pragmatic. The usa spent millions developing a pen for the space program that could write in zero g....russian scientists said use a pencil

Not true I’m afraid. Normal pencils are a really bad idea in space, and the Space Pen was developed by a private company that made much more than the development costs back by selling their pens to the public: I had one once and it was very good.

Edit: Snopes on this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-write-stuff/

Thanks for correcting me. I hadnt seen it refuted before. However not sure that confirms an issue with pencils as they were certainly used and no mention of them ever creating an actual problem rather than the theoretical one mentioned

I think grease pencils, the sort that write on glass or china, were used as they didn’t have the graphite points breaking off problem.

kinabalu

Per my straw poll of friends and rellies the takeup for the vaccine will be easily enough to get the job done. And I certainly hope that is the case.

DecrepiterJohnL

On the vaccine, I have heard people say they want to be near the front of the queue but not *at* the front of the queue but I think this anecdata came after news reports on the Oxford vaccine with the details that it had not been tested on the very old or young.

If widespread, this suggests objections are more nuanced than "it's a hoax" or "it has terrible side-effects".

TheScreamingEagles

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

I'd guess that's tricky. If you posted from within the workplace fair enough, but if you posted elsewhere and din't make a connection with your company. The employer would have to make an argument that this counted as within the workplace - and I think that's the line. (There are almost certainly experts on this available on PB, and they probably are avoiding any comment - I don't comment on my personal specialist area - and the streets are not so well swept as a result)

My contract of employment says I can also be sacked for drug use.

Something some people do outside the workplace.

Take Jake Hepple, he wasn't sacked for organising the 'White Lives Matter' banner on a plane, he was sacked for repeatedly using racist terms on social media and admitting drug use.

Pagan2

YBarddCwsc said:

One of my all-time favourite scientists was an anti-vaxxer.

Alfred Russell Wallace, biologist, socialist. The wealthy Charles Darwin's impoverished competitor.

Wallace argued that both liberty and science need to be taken into account, but that liberty is more important than science.

It is a brave argument.

An anti vaxxer or just an asserter that our bodies don't belong to the state and we get a say in what goes into them? I for example support a jehovah's witness's right to refuse medical interventions for themselves but it doesn't make me anti medical intervention

malcolmg

FPT @Pagan2
Pagan2 said:

» show previous quotes
When you are both are on good salaries yes. When you dont have much more than 100 or 200 left over after all bills are paid one of you spending 150 pounds on for example a pair of shoes it becomes an issue if the money is totally joint and yes then you feel you have to say "do you mind if I buy x". You and your wife are lucky you have enough money coming in that you can spend what you like. I think you once intimated your income was in 6 figures....most couples however aren't in the situation where they can spend what they like and therefore they have to jointly decide what the free money gets spent on.

Very true, I retract my silly comment.

DougSeal

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

There's the SNP chap who works in the MoD and was penalised because of his politics. Which turn out to be protected, at least in this case. This gives the name/date - I'm not saying it is the best account.

https://www.addleshawgoddard.com/en/insights/insights-briefings/2019/employment/employment-up-to-date-april-2019/mceleny-v-mod/

I'm surprised this wasn't appealed (although it may have been - there is a significant Covid backlog in the EAT). The Tribunal rightly drew a distinction between belief in Scottish independence and membership of the SNP, saying that in the very unlikely event the position of the SNP on independence changed, then he would leave, which is fair enough. But as the below article points out it's not too much of a stretch to find a similar belief in Brexit to be protected which many would find less comfortable.

https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/something-to-be-leave-in-brexit-as-a-philosophical-belief

dixiedean

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

And even if it is held to be protected philosophical belief, there won't be direct discrimination against anti-vaxxers (e.g. firing people just because they are anti-vaxxers) but some will allege an employer's PCP of requiring a shot is indirectly discriminatory. But indirect discrimination is easily objectively justified on the grounds you detail.

Don't employers also have a duty of care to the rest of the staff?

malcolmg

Omnium said:

rottenborough said:

SandyRentool said:

Any truth in the rumour that PPE graduates will be in the first tranche for the vaccine?

After all, we've been hearing how important PPE is for the past 9 months.

Haven't all the PPE graduates already had the virus as they all work in Westminster?

When you say 'work in Westminster'....

exactly work and Westminster are oxymorons

Pagan2

malcolmg said:

FPT @Pagan2
Pagan2 said:

» show previous quotes
When you are both are on good salaries yes. When you dont have much more than 100 or 200 left over after all bills are paid one of you spending 150 pounds on for example a pair of shoes it becomes an issue if the money is totally joint and yes then you feel you have to say "do you mind if I buy x". You and your wife are lucky you have enough money coming in that you can spend what you like. I think you once intimated your income was in 6 figures....most couples however aren't in the situation where they can spend what they like and therefore they have to jointly decide what the free money gets spent on.

Very true, I retract my silly comment.

Wasn't silly was merely pointing out that most aren't in a situation where both can spend what they like

DecrepiterJohnL

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

I'd guess that's tricky. If you posted from within the workplace fair enough, but if you posted elsewhere and din't make a connection with your company. The employer would have to make an argument that this counted as within the workplace - and I think that's the line. (There are almost certainly experts on this available on PB, and they probably are avoiding any comment - I don't comment on my personal specialist area - and the streets are not so well swept as a result)

Trouble is there can be a connection to the company even without a connection. Fred Smith is famous because he works for the BBC, and even you are known to work for Acme Inc because I looked you up on linkedin after you were rude about whatever cause I care deeply about.

williamglenn

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

A prominent Russian journalist who had been given the vaccine announced yesterday that he has fallen ill with coronavirus, so either he was unlucky, or what he was given was ineffective.

Nigelb

Fysics_Teacher said:

Pagan2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

I like the fact russian science is pragmatic. The usa spent millions developing a pen for the space program that could write in zero g....russian scientists said use a pencil

Not true I’m afraid. Normal pencils are a really bad idea in space, and the Space Pen was developed by a private company that made much more than the development costs back by selling their pens to the public: I had one once and it was very good.

Edit: Snopes on this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-write-stuff/

There are some interesting examples of space design pragmatism, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanhui_Shi_Weixing
A novel feature of the spacecraft's re-entry module was the use of impregnated oak, a natural material, as the ablative material for its heat shield....

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1332743324856446979

malcolmg

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

They should horse whip and then tar and feather them as well as sacking them.

YBarddCwsc

Pagan2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

One of my all-time favourite scientists was an anti-vaxxer.

Alfred Russell Wallace, biologist, socialist. The wealthy Charles Darwin's impoverished competitor.

Wallace argued that both liberty and science need to be taken into account, but that liberty is more important than science.

It is a brave argument.

An anti vaxxer or just an asserter that our bodies don't belong to the state and we get a say in what goes into them? I for example support a jehovah's witness's right to refuse medical interventions for themselves but it doesn't make me anti medical intervention

Wallace was a confirmed anti-vaxxer. He did not believe the statistical evidence on the smallpox vaccine (which I think had been sex-ed up by vaccine enthusiasts).

But, Wallace also thought the Victorian vaccination legislation was part of an unfair, class-based, coercive, and disciplinary healthcare and justice system run by the better-off.

So, I think a bit of both.

Pagan2

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

I'd guess that's tricky. If you posted from within the workplace fair enough, but if you posted elsewhere and din't make a connection with your company. The employer would have to make an argument that this counted as within the workplace - and I think that's the line. (There are almost certainly experts on this available on PB, and they probably are avoiding any comment - I don't comment on my personal specialist area - and the streets are not so well swept as a result)

Trouble is there can be a connection to the company even without a connection. Fred Smith is famous because he works for the BBC, and even you are known to work for Acme Inc because I looked you up on linkedin after you were rude about whatever cause I care deeply about.

My workplace has in the contract that when you leave you have to provide all your social media passwords to HR. I don't think they have ever tried to enforce it and I suspect any court would throw it out. Plus it is against most social media TOS.

If you are associated with a company to viewers of your account I think its a fair point you are sackable for what you say on the account. However if like me on here I say something and no one has any idea who I work for then it should be non sackable.

malcolmg

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

I would not be keen on being lumbered with the Oxford vaccine for sure , if no choice and that is option I hope there are private options that you can pay for.

Omnium

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

I'd guess that's tricky. If you posted from within the workplace fair enough, but if you posted elsewhere and din't make a connection with your company. The employer would have to make an argument that this counted as within the workplace - and I think that's the line. (There are almost certainly experts on this available on PB, and they probably are avoiding any comment - I don't comment on my personal specialist area - and the streets are not so well swept as a result)

My contract of employment says I can also be sacked for drug use.

Something some people do outside the workplace.

Take Jake Hepple, he wasn't sacked for organising the 'White Lives Matter' banner on a plane, he was sacked for repeatedly using racist terms on social media and admitting drug use.

I wonder on what basis 'drug use' might be judged though.

Employment contracts say all sorts of wild and wonderful things, most usually relating to IP. They're often not enforceable though.

Extreme conduct might spill over, and perhaps the case you cite is an example of that.

Pagan2

YBarddCwsc said:

Pagan2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

One of my all-time favourite scientists was an anti-vaxxer.

Alfred Russell Wallace, biologist, socialist. The wealthy Charles Darwin's impoverished competitor.

Wallace argued that both liberty and science need to be taken into account, but that liberty is more important than science.

It is a brave argument.

An anti vaxxer or just an asserter that our bodies don't belong to the state and we get a say in what goes into them? I for example support a jehovah's witness's right to refuse medical interventions for themselves but it doesn't make me anti medical intervention

Wallace was a confirmed anti-vaxxer. He did not believe the statistical evidence on the smallpox vaccine (which I think had been sex-ed up by vaccine enthusiasts).

But, Wallace also thought the Victorian vaccination legislation was part of an unfair, class-based, coercive, and disciplinary healthcare and justice system run by the better-off.

So, I think a bit of both.

Well I call him a dick for the former but support the latter. Though would also take the stance that if you don't have the vaccine and contract the disease then you can go private for treatment

williamglenn

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1332743324856446979

Is it going to grab the mic?

noneoftheabove

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

I would not be keen on being lumbered with the Oxford vaccine for sure , if no choice and that is option I hope there are private options that you can pay for.

Is there any reason not to take the first one available and then top up if better ones become accessible later?

TheScreamingEagles

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

I'd guess that's tricky. If you posted from within the workplace fair enough, but if you posted elsewhere and din't make a connection with your company. The employer would have to make an argument that this counted as within the workplace - and I think that's the line. (There are almost certainly experts on this available on PB, and they probably are avoiding any comment - I don't comment on my personal specialist area - and the streets are not so well swept as a result)

My contract of employment says I can also be sacked for drug use.

Something some people do outside the workplace.

Take Jake Hepple, he wasn't sacked for organising the 'White Lives Matter' banner on a plane, he was sacked for repeatedly using racist terms on social media and admitting drug use.

I wonder on what basis 'drug use' might be judged though.

Employment contracts say all sorts of wild and wonderful things, most usually relating to IP. They're often not enforceable though.

Extreme conduct might spill over, and perhaps the case you cite is an example of that.

Plenty of places have random mandatory drug tests.

It is a bloody pain, some people have performance issues, one person it took them six hours to pee.

YBarddCwsc

williamglenn said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

A prominent Russian journalist who had been given the vaccine announced yesterday that he has fallen ill with coronavirus, so either he was unlucky, or what he was given was ineffective.

The vaccines are not 100 per cent effective. If you are vaccinating millions of people, then some will fall ill (for a number of reasons).

malcolmg

Pagan2 said:

malcolmg said:

FPT @Pagan2
Pagan2 said:

» show previous quotes
When you are both are on good salaries yes. When you dont have much more than 100 or 200 left over after all bills are paid one of you spending 150 pounds on for example a pair of shoes it becomes an issue if the money is totally joint and yes then you feel you have to say "do you mind if I buy x". You and your wife are lucky you have enough money coming in that you can spend what you like. I think you once intimated your income was in 6 figures....most couples however aren't in the situation where they can spend what they like and therefore they have to jointly decide what the free money gets spent on.

Very true, I retract my silly comment.

Wasn't silly was merely pointing out that most aren't in a situation where both can spend what they like

I meant my comment was silly, not yours which was very sensible and correct, I should think before typing. @Pagan2

Nigelb

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1332743324856446979

Just a giant orange troll.

Omnium

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

I would not be keen on being lumbered with the Oxford vaccine for sure , if no choice and that is option I hope there are private options that you can pay for.

I'd actually go for the Oxford vaccine if I could choose. I'd prefer to be with the larger number of others.

The Edinburgh vaccine of some excellent Scotch, and some great food. A warm fire and a kip-worthy bed would of course be my first choice.

DecrepiterJohnL

YBarddCwsc said:

Pagan2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

One of my all-time favourite scientists was an anti-vaxxer.

Alfred Russell Wallace, biologist, socialist. The wealthy Charles Darwin's impoverished competitor.

Wallace argued that both liberty and science need to be taken into account, but that liberty is more important than science.

It is a brave argument.

An anti vaxxer or just an asserter that our bodies don't belong to the state and we get a say in what goes into them? I for example support a jehovah's witness's right to refuse medical interventions for themselves but it doesn't make me anti medical intervention

Wallace was a confirmed anti-vaxxer. He did not believe the statistical evidence on the smallpox vaccine (which I think had been sex-ed up by vaccine enthusiasts).

But, Wallace also thought the Victorian vaccination legislation was part of an unfair, class-based, coercive, and disciplinary healthcare and justice system run by the better-off.

So, I think a bit of both.

Aiui in the early 20th Century a lot of vaccines were knocked up in the hospital's pathology lab, unlike today.

LostPassword

Gaussian said:

So will people:
a) Be extra careful because it would be really stupid to suffer from the virus just before getting the vaccine.
b) Throw caution to the wind because the vaccine is on the way.

My money is on b.

The measured protection of the vaccine is from about six weeks after the first injection (a fortnight after the booster, itself four weeks after the first injection).

That's a particularly risky period psychologically.

Pagan2

malcolmg said:

Pagan2 said:

malcolmg said:

FPT @Pagan2
Pagan2 said:

» show previous quotes
When you are both are on good salaries yes. When you dont have much more than 100 or 200 left over after all bills are paid one of you spending 150 pounds on for example a pair of shoes it becomes an issue if the money is totally joint and yes then you feel you have to say "do you mind if I buy x". You and your wife are lucky you have enough money coming in that you can spend what you like. I think you once intimated your income was in 6 figures....most couples however aren't in the situation where they can spend what they like and therefore they have to jointly decide what the free money gets spent on.

Very true, I retract my silly comment.

Wasn't silly was merely pointing out that most aren't in a situation where both can spend what they like

I meant my comment was silly, not yours which was very sensible and correct, I should think before typing. @Pagan2

and I meant your comment wasn't silly it was merely made from your knowledge of your state of being without considering how others have to live

IshmaelZ

Pagan2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

One of my all-time favourite scientists was an anti-vaxxer.

Alfred Russell Wallace, biologist, socialist. The wealthy Charles Darwin's impoverished competitor.

Wallace argued that both liberty and science need to be taken into account, but that liberty is more important than science.

It is a brave argument.

An anti vaxxer or just an asserter that our bodies don't belong to the state and we get a say in what goes into them? I for example support a jehovah's witness's right to refuse medical interventions for themselves but it doesn't make me anti medical intervention

He seems to have been simply wrong on the science, he thought the smallpox vaccine was ineffective. The argument was about vaccinating children, no one has evet tried compulsory vaccination of adults nor compulsory procedures on adult JWs.

malcolmg

noneoftheabove said:

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

I would not be keen on being lumbered with the Oxford vaccine for sure , if no choice and that is option I hope there are private options that you can pay for.

Is there any reason not to take the first one available and then top up if better ones become accessible later?

Probably not but being half covered is likely to make you more lax. Think it might be better to stay vigilant though better than nothing I suppose.

Gaussian

alex_ said:

Is Wales going to have to cancel their Christmas?

It's certainly not looking good for them. They could be at three times the case numbers of the rest of the UK by mid December, with corresponding death numbers around New Year.

Labour might have just lost the Senedd election in May.

malcolmg

Pagan2 said:

malcolmg said:

Pagan2 said:

malcolmg said:

FPT @Pagan2
Pagan2 said:

» show previous quotes
When you are both are on good salaries yes. When you dont have much more than 100 or 200 left over after all bills are paid one of you spending 150 pounds on for example a pair of shoes it becomes an issue if the money is totally joint and yes then you feel you have to say "do you mind if I buy x". You and your wife are lucky you have enough money coming in that you can spend what you like. I think you once intimated your income was in 6 figures....most couples however aren't in the situation where they can spend what they like and therefore they have to jointly decide what the free money gets spent on.

Very true, I retract my silly comment.

Wasn't silly was merely pointing out that most aren't in a situation where both can spend what they like

I meant my comment was silly, not yours which was very sensible and correct, I should think before typing. @Pagan2

and I meant your comment wasn't silly it was merely made from your knowledge of your state of being without considering how others have to live

Yes but once pointed out , it was a bit crass and unthinking , not something I would normally do.

DecrepiterJohnL

DougSeal said:

Pagan2 said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

While not an antivaxxer by any means I am in the 50% that wait category. Maybe because I grew up when thalidomide is a thing. I think someone could quite probably make a case that the accelerated testing on the vaccine gave them doubts about its safety. I believe the normal time to introduce a new vaccine is 7 years and a lot of that is addressing safety issues. As a layman on this I therefore assume that 7 years testing has a reason for it rather than just a number plucked out of thin air.

I would suggest a company could quite rightly say you can't come into the office without a vaccination but would be on stickier ground firing you if you can work from home just because you took a wait and see approach

Also on the ethical vegan thing is the vaccine not tested on animals?

I don't know if the vaccine is tested on animals but even if it were it would only be indirectly discriminatory and would therefore justifiable. It's only direct discrimination (e.g. "we're firing you because you're a woman/asian/gay/Catholic etc etc") that can't be justified - except for age discrimination where you can theoretically kick out oldies just because of age if you can show there is a need to make room for younger workers, but even that is difficult.

How will the company know its employees' vaccination status? (We mentioned this the other day in respect of airlines.) Is Nadhim Zahawi going to hand out certificates of vaccination? Will there be a central database created (with accompanying privacy issues)?

malcolmg

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A YouGov survey for The Times has found that 73 per cent of people are likely to take a vaccine if it becomes available on the NHS but only a third would like to be among the first to do so. Almost half said they would prefer to wait until someone else was given it before they took it.

Twenty-five per cent said they would rather take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine compared with 6 per cent the Pfizer vaccine, 2 per cent the Moderna one and 29 per cent who expressed no preference.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/people-with-diabetes-to-be-prioritised-for-covid-19-vaccine-5829g2css

Thanks for posting that - esp given you suggested fewer people would be prepared to take the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine the other day. IMHO there remains enough respect for the medical profession in this country that if a GP says he's taken it then patients will generally follow. I may be wrong though.

I would not be keen on being lumbered with the Oxford vaccine for sure , if no choice and that is option I hope there are private options that you can pay for.

I'd actually go for the Oxford vaccine if I could choose. I'd prefer to be with the larger number of others.

The Edinburgh vaccine of some excellent Scotch, and some great food. A warm fire and a kip-worthy bed would of course be my first choice.

Now your talking. Will certainly be a tough decision for people but you would have to think anyone older or with issues would want to take it.

FrancisUrquhart

alex_ said:

Is Wales going to have to cancel their Christmas?

Another circuit breaker? I wonder if we will be hearing many politicians bringing that up again?

Pagan2

IshmaelZ said:

Pagan2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

One of my all-time favourite scientists was an anti-vaxxer.

Alfred Russell Wallace, biologist, socialist. The wealthy Charles Darwin's impoverished competitor.

Wallace argued that both liberty and science need to be taken into account, but that liberty is more important than science.

It is a brave argument.

An anti vaxxer or just an asserter that our bodies don't belong to the state and we get a say in what goes into them? I for example support a jehovah's witness's right to refuse medical interventions for themselves but it doesn't make me anti medical intervention

He seems to have been simply wrong on the science, he thought the smallpox vaccine was ineffective. The argument was about vaccinating children, no one has evet tried compulsory vaccination of adults nor compulsory procedures on adult JWs.

No not as yet, but there is compulsory and practically compulsory. If a vaccination for Covid is necessary to be employed, go on a train, a bus, a plane, a bar, a restaurant etc then while not in the legal sense its compulsory it is practically compulsory.

A good example of this is a while back I was offered a deal to leave from a company I worked for. However I had to run it past a solicitor. However to do that I had to have photo id. Now I don't have a driving licence with a photo nor did I have a valid passport at the time. Photo id is not compulsory however practically I had to get one just so I could accept the agreement

IshmaelZ

williamglenn said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

A prominent Russian journalist who had been given the vaccine announced yesterday that he has fallen ill with coronavirus, so either he was unlucky, or what he was given was ineffective.

If it is 92% effective then it doesn't work on one in every 12 people. Lot of people.

malcolmg

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

I'd guess that's tricky. If you posted from within the workplace fair enough, but if you posted elsewhere and din't make a connection with your company. The employer would have to make an argument that this counted as within the workplace - and I think that's the line. (There are almost certainly experts on this available on PB, and they probably are avoiding any comment - I don't comment on my personal specialist area - and the streets are not so well swept as a result)

My contract of employment says I can also be sacked for drug use.

Something some people do outside the workplace.

Take Jake Hepple, he wasn't sacked for organising the 'White Lives Matter' banner on a plane, he was sacked for repeatedly using racist terms on social media and admitting drug use.

I wonder on what basis 'drug use' might be judged though.

Employment contracts say all sorts of wild and wonderful things, most usually relating to IP. They're often not enforceable though.

Extreme conduct might spill over, and perhaps the case you cite is an example of that.

Plenty of places have random mandatory drug tests.

It is a bloody pain, some people have performance issues, one person it took them six hours to pee.

Sensible for jobs like train , bus , lorry drivers , pilots etc. If you are responsible for people's life then it should not be an issue. Not so sure in general unless it is affecting your work.

Foxy

SandyRentool said:

Any truth in the rumour that PPE graduates will be in the first tranche for the vaccine?

After all, we've been hearing how important PPE is for the past 9 months.

Nailed on that chums of the government are first in the queue. Get out of the way plebs.

FrancisUrquhart

Gaussian said:

alex_ said:

Is Wales going to have to cancel their Christmas?

It's certainly not looking good for them. They could be at three times the case numbers of the rest of the UK by mid December, with corresponding death numbers around New Year.

Labour might have just lost the Senedd election in May.

Luckily for them they never get called out on it. From day one, piss poor testing. While Hancock got all the shit over did he hit his target or was it fudged, Wales basically managed no increase in testing at all and wouldn't have anything to do with English labs.

Now there are loads of articles about if English lockdown has worked, was it too.late, are the tiers right etc. Virtually no coverage of a total up f##k in Wales.

Mexicanpete

alex_ said:

Is Wales going to have to cancel their Christmas?

Many PBTories seem to be getting quite excited at the prospect that we in Wales are all going to succumb to Covid because of Starmer/Drakeford's too early, too short, reckless lockdown, whereas in England you have all been saved by Johnson's genius.

The figures look patchy everywhere, but indeed seem to be on the rise in lockdown England's shopping paradise (Wales).

Quite frankly, I'd like us all to survive.

DougSeal

Pagan2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

I'd guess that's tricky. If you posted from within the workplace fair enough, but if you posted elsewhere and din't make a connection with your company. The employer would have to make an argument that this counted as within the workplace - and I think that's the line. (There are almost certainly experts on this available on PB, and they probably are avoiding any comment - I don't comment on my personal specialist area - and the streets are not so well swept as a result)

Trouble is there can be a connection to the company even without a connection. Fred Smith is famous because he works for the BBC, and even you are known to work for Acme Inc because I looked you up on linkedin after you were rude about whatever cause I care deeply about.

My workplace has in the contract that when you leave you have to provide all your social media passwords to HR. I don't think they have ever tried to enforce it and I suspect any court would throw it out. Plus it is against most social media TOS.

If you are associated with a company to viewers of your account I think its a fair point you are sackable for what you say on the account. However if like me on here I say something and no one has any idea who I work for then it should be non sackable.

There is no way they would be able to enforce a provision for your personal social media accounts - but injunctions have been obtained forcing someone to give up LinkedIn passwords. If you're a social media administrator for a firm and leave with the passwords that can be a nightmare.

https://shepwedd.com/knowledge/whitmar-publications-ltd-v-gamage

Omnium

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

We've been discussing this at work this week, the considered view is that someone's ethical veganism won't cause colleagues to die/get ill unlike a militant antivaxxer.

But that's a work in progress.

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

I'd guess that's tricky. If you posted from within the workplace fair enough, but if you posted elsewhere and din't make a connection with your company. The employer would have to make an argument that this counted as within the workplace - and I think that's the line. (There are almost certainly experts on this available on PB, and they probably are avoiding any comment - I don't comment on my personal specialist area - and the streets are not so well swept as a result)

My contract of employment says I can also be sacked for drug use.

Something some people do outside the workplace.

Take Jake Hepple, he wasn't sacked for organising the 'White Lives Matter' banner on a plane, he was sacked for repeatedly using racist terms on social media and admitting drug use.

I wonder on what basis 'drug use' might be judged though.

Employment contracts say all sorts of wild and wonderful things, most usually relating to IP. They're often not enforceable though.

Extreme conduct might spill over, and perhaps the case you cite is an example of that.

Plenty of places have random mandatory drug tests.

It is a bloody pain, some people have performance issues, one person it took them six hours to pee.

That's 'in the office' though.
If you drink a couple of litres of water you'll want to go before a couple of hours are out.

Occupations like Air Traffic Controllers, Tube Drivers, Bus Drivers, Ferry Captains, who knows what else. These occupations bring with them an expectation of care on the employer and that expectation must devolve to the employee too.

Half the City would perhaps admit to having at one time used drugs - they're not likely to be sacked.

malcolmg

IshmaelZ said:

williamglenn said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Bizarre Anglocentric headline. "THE UK SET TO BE THE FIRST WHERE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED"

I think China has already vaccinated a million people. Russia has a vaccination program.

(I have a high opinion of Russian science, so I don't share the routine pb-sneering of Russia).

A prominent Russian journalist who had been given the vaccine announced yesterday that he has fallen ill with coronavirus, so either he was unlucky, or what he was given was ineffective.

If it is 92% effective then it doesn't work on one in every 12 people. Lot of people.

Is it not the case though that once you get above 80 % or so that it makes it almost herd immunity and it will die out etc

YBarddCwsc

Gaussian said:

alex_ said:

Is Wales going to have to cancel their Christmas?

It's certainly not looking good for them. They could be at three times the case numbers of the rest of the UK by mid December, with corresponding death numbers around New Year.

Labour might have just lost the Senedd election in May.

There are regular broadcasts from some of the English Labour posters on pb,com, reassuring us ignorant Welsh that Drakeford has the matter under control.

But -- I agree -- the data do seem to show that Drakeford has fucked up rather spectacularly this Autumn.

Big_G_NorthWales

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

Is Wales going to have to cancel their Christmas?

Another circuit breaker? I wonder if we will be hearing many politicians bringing that up again?

My wife and I already have cancelled our family Christmas with 10 of us and will spend it on our own

Our family completely agree and will also have Christmas on their own with their own children

And we decided this during the fire break as we had no confidence it would change the covid incidence

Cyclefree

FPT in response to @YBarddCwsc

“Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I disagree on 4 quite strongly.

It would be unpopular with the old, but it would also be the right thing to do -- a system in which the old vote and they vote to keep everything they have and so we must not upset the old means nothing ever will really change.

Young people are almost wholly immune. They have been asked to make huge sacrifices for others during COVID -- it is the perfect time to say they should be rewarded or compensated.

Where is Cyclefree when we need her?”

I agree with this. We owe a great deal to the young and we should be doing whatever we can to help them. So some form of wealth tax and abandoning the triple lock etc.

Re the vaccination programme, I have never been particularly impressed with Nadim Zahawi so I hope he has a good team behind him. What is really scary in the announcement is the reference to “until the summer”.

If restrictions are going to continue until then without a proper support package, then there is not going to be a hospitality sector left by then. Daughter is very uncertain about whether she can even survive until the spring. Surviving until summer would be a disaster. Even if she could she is not sure whether it would be worth it. All that effort - and for what? Just to survive - not to grow and develop the business, as she had planned. And for which she was well set up at the end of her first year’s trading. She had such plans - well thought out, budgeted for, researched. All up in smoke.

The same must apply to thousands of our young. So yes we do owe them.

Assuming that summer means start of July it would mean that in a 16 month period she would have had only a 2 & 1/2 month period of trading at something around 60 - 70% of capacity. That is untenable. Restaurants cannot survive on just households going out with themselves. Pubs/restaurants cannot survive without drinkers. If we are told not to socialise outside the home until the summer, the hospitality sector is dead.

That is why - and I will keep on banging about this until Sunak bloody well listens to me - a proper support package is needed.

Pagan2

DougSeal said:

Pagan2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

I'd imagine that employers can choose to exclude people based on a criterion from their building. They can't unemploy someone on the basis that they refuse to comply though. Employers have no power over you outside the workplace.

Actually they do have some power.

Some can sack you for what you post on social media for starters.

I'd guess that's tricky. If you posted from within the workplace fair enough, but if you posted elsewhere and din't make a connection with your company. The employer would have to make an argument that this counted as within the workplace - and I think that's the line. (There are almost certainly experts on this available on PB, and they probably are avoiding any comment - I don't comment on my personal specialist area - and the streets are not so well swept as a result)

Trouble is there can be a connection to the company even without a connection. Fred Smith is famous because he works for the BBC, and even you are known to work for Acme Inc because I looked you up on linkedin after you were rude about whatever cause I care deeply about.

My workplace has in the contract that when you leave you have to provide all your social media passwords to HR. I don't think they have ever tried to enforce it and I suspect any court would throw it out. Plus it is against most social media TOS.

If you are associated with a company to viewers of your account I think its a fair point you are sackable for what you say on the account. However if like me on here I say something and no one has any idea who I work for then it should be non sackable.

There is no way they would be able to enforce a provision for your personal social media accounts - but injunctions have been obtained forcing someone to give up LinkedIn passwords. If you're a social media administrator for a firm and leave with the passwords that can be a nightmare.

https://shepwedd.com/knowledge/whitmar-publications-ltd-v-gamage

Fortunately PB is the only "social media" I participate in as I dont have a facebook account, twitter account or linkenin account

Benpointer

Gaussian said:

So will people:
a) Be extra careful because it would be really stupid to suffer from the virus just before getting the vaccine.
b) Throw caution to the wind because the vaccine is on the way.

My money is on b.

It will be some and some of course but everyone I have spoken to so far is in camp a).

Big_G_NorthWales

Gaussian said:

alex_ said:

Is Wales going to have to cancel their Christmas?

It's certainly not looking good for them. They could be at three times the case numbers of the rest of the UK by mid December, with corresponding death numbers around New Year.

Labour might have just lost the Senedd election in May.

I did predict this as I reported on several occasions Drakeford gave the pledge only to use one fire break and most everyone got out and about the day it ended, as if covid itself had ended

FrancisUrquhart

By first country, i presume the journalist means Europe, rather than the world?

IshmaelZ

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DougSeal said:

Pagan2 said:

DougSeal said:

I'm writing an article at this evening about whether employers can legally require employees to take a vaccine. I like them to be short and pithy but I'm bogged down in an analysis of whether anti-vaxx could be a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act. I immediately said "no", its more akin to a non-protected political belief, but now I'm doubting myself because ethical veganism was held in January to be protected against discrimination - and both largely revolve around what you put in your body. I'll fudge that bit for the mo and move onto H&S.

While not an antivaxxer by any means I am in the 50% that wait category. Maybe because I grew up when thalidomide is a thing. I think someone could quite probably make a case that the accelerated testing on the vaccine gave them doubts about its safety. I believe the normal time to introduce a new vaccine is 7 years and a lot of that is addressing safety issues. As a layman on this I therefore assume that 7 years testing has a reason for it rather than just a number plucked out of thin air.

I would suggest a company could quite rightly say you can't come into the office without a vaccination but would be on stickier ground firing you if you can work from home just because you took a wait and see approach

Also on the ethical vegan thing is the vaccine not tested on animals?

I don't know if the vaccine is tested on animals but even if it were it would only be indirectly discriminatory and would therefore justifiable. It's only direct discrimination (e.g. "we're firing you because you're a woman/asian/gay/Catholic etc etc") that can't be justified - except for age discrimination where you can theoretically kick out oldies just because of age if you can show there is a need to make room for younger workers, but even that is difficult.

How will the company know its employees' vaccination status? (We mentioned this the other day in respect of airlines.) Is Nadhim Zahawi going to hand out certificates of vaccination? Will there be a central database created (with accompanying privacy issues)?

Vaccination certificates are standard; you have to show them at the borders of countries which require them (e.g. yellow fever in some African countries)

YBarddCwsc

FrancisUrquhart said:

Gaussian said:

alex_ said:

Is Wales going to have to cancel their Christmas?

It's certainly not looking good for them. They could be at three times the case numbers of the rest of the UK by mid December, with corresponding death numbers around New Year.

Labour might have just lost the Senedd election in May.

Luckily for them they never get called out on it. From day one, piss poor testing. While Hancock got all the shit over did he hit his target or was it fudged, Wales basically managed no increase in testing at all and wouldn't have anything to do with English labs.

Now there are loads of articles about if English lockdown has worked, was it too.late, are the tiers right etc. Virtually no coverage of a total up f##k in Wales.

The reason is very simple. No one in England is interested in Wales.