Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The Oxford/AZ vaccine gets approved – now ministers needs to ensure that it gets out quickly and in

SystemSystem Posts: 11,709
edited December 2020 in General
imageThe Oxford/AZ vaccine gets approved – now ministers needs to ensure that it gets out quickly and in a fair manner – politicalbetting.com

While the United States and the EU continue to deliberate on the Oxford vaccine the big news in the UK is that it has now been approved and that we are told 4 million jobs are ready for distribution.

Read the full story here

«13456715

Comments

  • Options
    BalrogBalrog Posts: 207
    First?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    edited December 2020
    Second!

    Each MP should be the very last person in their constituency to get a jab, after everyone else who wants one has had one.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    ‘4 million jobs’ - nice.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    ‘There should be no queue jumping and the distribution should be based on clear and obvious rules that people can agree with.‘

    If that’s the criteria for avoiding political meltdown, the government are more buggered than a reluctant Turkish conscript.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    It's interesting that we haven't heard whether or not the Queen and the Duke have had the vaccine. I do think we have less of an anti-vax problem here and more of a "it's not fair that they've had it and I haven't had it" problem so perhaps it makes sense that the powers that be don't want to say either way.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    I agree about politicians jumping the queue - apparently it is claimed to encourage confidence that it is safe but the optics are bad.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    Toby Young and the deniers clearly should want to be last.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    Sandpit said:

    Second!

    Each MP should be the very last person in their constituency to get a jab, after everyone else who wants one has had one.

    Do Gavin Williamson and Nick Gibb actually need one at all? Given their bullying and bungling has led, as we saw this morning, to actual deaths, I am not feeling charitable towards them.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    Jonathan said:

    ‘4 million jobs’ - nice.

    Solves the unemployment problem...
  • Options
    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    tlg86 said:

    It's interesting that we haven't heard whether or not the Queen and the Duke have had the vaccine. I do think we have less of an anti-vax problem here and more of a "it's not fair that they've had it and I haven't had it" problem so perhaps it makes sense that the powers that be don't want to say either way.

    Based on their age they should probably have had it by now.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    ydoethur said:

    ‘There should be no queue jumping and the distribution should be based on clear and obvious rules that people can agree with.‘

    If that’s the criteria for avoiding political meltdown, the government are more buggered than a reluctant Turkish conscript.

    If they continue as they have been, we'll be getting weekly announcements of revisions to the priority order
  • Options
    What's that coming over the hill...is it a monster...is it a monster...no all the oldies stampeding to the airport in March.
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    It's interesting that we haven't heard whether or not the Queen and the Duke have had the vaccine. I do think we have less of an anti-vax problem here and more of a "it's not fair that they've had it and I haven't had it" problem so perhaps it makes sense that the powers that be don't want to say either way.

    You can guarantee all the parasites will have had it.
  • Options
    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    It's interesting that we haven't heard whether or not the Queen and the Duke have had the vaccine. I do think we have less of an anti-vax problem here and more of a "it's not fair that they've had it and I haven't had it" problem so perhaps it makes sense that the powers that be don't want to say either way.

    I’m sure I heard a recent statement on the news that HMQ and Phil would be waiting their turn like everyone else (they’d be pretty high up the list anyway I’d imagine).
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    There's an old gag about someone who leaves an old fridge on the pavement for collection as rubbish and it stays there for weeks, so they put a sign on it saying "for sale £20" and it gets nicked in half an hour. Perhaps the way to ensure maximum vaccine uptake is to deliberately make it obtainable corruptly and dishonestly. Maybe even make it a class C drug.
  • Options
    👍 👍
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    felix said:

    I agree about politicians jumping the queue - apparently it is claimed to encourage confidence that it is safe but the optics are bad.

    One argument in favour though is that, like teachers, they have to gather with many others in cramped, unventilated rooms. And unlike teachers, they have to do a lot of regular travelling. So they are a vulnerable group to infection and spreading. I know substitutes have been found but they’re at best makeshift ones.

    But I agree, the optics would be bad, given how hated they are.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    Do HM and David Attenborough to set a public example, then get on with it. No politicians or celebs.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    I for one think Premier League footballers should be at the top of the list...
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472

    tlg86 said:

    It's interesting that we haven't heard whether or not the Queen and the Duke have had the vaccine. I do think we have less of an anti-vax problem here and more of a "it's not fair that they've had it and I haven't had it" problem so perhaps it makes sense that the powers that be don't want to say either way.

    I’m sure I heard a recent statement on the news that HMQ and Phil would be waiting their turn like everyone else (they’d be pretty high up the list anyway I’d imagine).
    Given his age and health problems I would have assumed PhilIp would be damn near the top of any list.

    But, of course, unlike most people of their age and frailty they don’t have to share carers.
  • Options

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Off script Malc!

    Haven’t you noticed?

    No one talks about “the EU” anymore - it triggers far too many difficult questions - nowadays it’s just “Europe” (what ever that means).
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512

    What's that coming over the hill...is it a monster...is it a monster...no all the oldies stampeding to the airport in March.

    If that really did happen, while working age people are still behaving safely and patiently waiting in the queue, it could trigger a political turning point.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    tlg86 said:

    I for one think Premier League footballers should be at the top of the list...

    Maybe - and charge them a few months wages....
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Toby Young and the deniers clearly should want to be last.

    The Russian one for those lads.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512

    tlg86 said:

    It's interesting that we haven't heard whether or not the Queen and the Duke have had the vaccine. I do think we have less of an anti-vax problem here and more of a "it's not fair that they've had it and I haven't had it" problem so perhaps it makes sense that the powers that be don't want to say either way.

    I’m sure I heard a recent statement on the news that HMQ and Phil would be waiting their turn like everyone else (they’d be pretty high up the list anyway I’d imagine).
    I believe about 20% of over-80s have been done to date?
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    Spare a thought for us stuck in Europe - at least 3 months before much happens. :)
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    It's interesting that we haven't heard whether or not the Queen and the Duke have had the vaccine. I do think we have less of an anti-vax problem here and more of a "it's not fair that they've had it and I haven't had it" problem so perhaps it makes sense that the powers that be don't want to say either way.

    I’m sure I heard a recent statement on the news that HMQ and Phil would be waiting their turn like everyone else (they’d be pretty high up the list anyway I’d imagine).
    I believe about 20% of over-80s have been done to date?
    My wife hasn't yet
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    I agree about politicians jumping the queue - apparently it is claimed to encourage confidence that it is safe but the optics are bad.

    One argument in favour though is that, like teachers, they have to gather with many others in cramped, unventilated rooms. And unlike teachers, they have to do a lot of regular travelling. So they are a vulnerable group to infection and spreading. I know substitutes have been found but they’re at best makeshift ones.

    But I agree, the optics would be bad, given how hated they are.
    They may be bad, but I believe the main government ministers as in the USA , should receive the vaccine early as they run the country.
    Also think teachers , police , civil servants , police , army should be considered.
  • Options
    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Toby Young and the deniers clearly should want to be last.

    The Russian one for those lads.
    They get jabbed by some guy walking past with an umbrella?
    To be fair, our cathedral towns might be well served.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512

    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
    ....another for the crap Brexit analogy file.
  • Options
    felix said:

    Spare a thought for us stuck in Europe - at least 3 months before much happens. :)

    Actually I fear that Europe will be quite a long time behind the UK in vaccinating its population and I suspect there may be some countries going alone in seeking supplies
  • Options

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416
    My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.

    For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.
  • Options
    R4 Oxford/Astra Zeneca will go into a lot of care homes because of the much easier logistics - Prof. Anthony Harden
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
    ....another for the crap Brexit analogy file.
    It wasn't my analogy, it was Nigelb and TOPPING that came up with it.

    TOPPING was trying to argue that my being married is incompatible with "personal sovereignty". His analogy not mine. Difference is though I chose my wife, she chose me - and if either of us decide we don't want to remain married we can get divorced.

    So yes the marriage analogy was crap. But I was arguing against it.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    DavidL said:

    My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.

    For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.

    Are we any the wiser as to whether having the vaccine reduces (or eliminates) the chance that you can still pass the virus on?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    edited December 2020

    IanB2 said:

    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
    ....another for the crap Brexit analogy file.
    It wasn't my analogy, it was Nigelb and TOPPING that came up with it.

    TOPPING was trying to argue that my being married is incompatible with "personal sovereignty". His analogy not mine. Difference is though I chose my wife, she chose me - and if either of us decide we don't want to remain married we can get divorced.

    So yes the marriage analogy was crap. But I was arguing against it.
    The strategy of arguing against an analogy by building on it is rarely a fruitful one. ;)
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913

    R4 Oxford/Astra Zeneca will go into a lot of care homes because of the much easier logistics - Prof. Anthony Harden

    I can only hope this is done quickly. The harm lockdown is having on the mental health of older friends and relatives cannot be overstated. The day that I will able to take my father out will be joyous.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,062
    For all our faults one thing us Brits are very good at is queuing.

    I remember my school biology teacher telling us this as he insisted we all stand in line outside the science building in winter.
  • Options
    Yorkcity said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    I agree about politicians jumping the queue - apparently it is claimed to encourage confidence that it is safe but the optics are bad.

    One argument in favour though is that, like teachers, they have to gather with many others in cramped, unventilated rooms. And unlike teachers, they have to do a lot of regular travelling. So they are a vulnerable group to infection and spreading. I know substitutes have been found but they’re at best makeshift ones.

    But I agree, the optics would be bad, given how hated they are.
    They may be bad, but I believe the main government ministers as in the USA , should receive the vaccine early as they run the country.
    Also think teachers , police , civil servants , police , army should be considered.
    I think it will be interesting to see how the under 50s are prioritised - the medical evidence has been pretty clear on the age/comorbidity issues.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.

    For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.

    Are we any the wiser as to whether having the vaccine reduces (or eliminates) the chance that you can still pass the virus on?
    Not that I have read. It may take mass vaccination to answer the question. If we see the R rate falling then those vaccinated are not transmitting. To me it is the difference between another 50K and another 150K dead. It's that important.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,062

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,904
    On topic.

    So now after the vaccine that works (Pfizer)

    We now have the placebo for plebs one (AZ)
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT
    Charles said:

    All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?

    Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
    I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.

    Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.

    The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.

    I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.

    My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
  • Options

    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
    You do know that the manifesto pledge wasn't for Lisbon don't you? Or is your argument that they should have gone ahead and held a referendum on the EU Constitution treaty that had already been scrapped?
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.

    For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.

    Are we any the wiser as to whether having the vaccine reduces (or eliminates) the chance that you can still pass the virus on?
    Not that I have read. It may take mass vaccination to answer the question. If we see the R rate falling then those vaccinated are not transmitting. To me it is the difference between another 50K and another 150K dead. It's that important.
    I think it is highly probable that it will reduce transmission. We won't know for a while yet, but probably will.

    The JCVI are operating on the assumption that it will - that afterall is why Care and NHS staff are in the first and second priority groupings - not to protect themselves but to protect those they work with.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.

    For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.

    Are we any the wiser as to whether having the vaccine reduces (or eliminates) the chance that you can still pass the virus on?
    Why don't you ask Tony Blair?

    He is your goto for advice on the "obvious". :)
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
    There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    TSE has hacked into bigjohnowls's account.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    Your might save a lot of bureaucracy and time if the this vaccine, was rolled out universally for the start.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    edited December 2020
    FPT
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hancock dropping a hint that schools may not be re-opening after all

    I have been very keen on the schools remaining open because the consequences for children's education, especially those from poorer backgrounds, have been horrendous. But in the face of the new variant and with mass vaccination under way keeping them closed for January is a no brainer, it really is.

    The knock on consequences may well be the cancellation of exams in England and Wales, just as we have suffered in Scotland. I think that this could still be avoided but it unquestionably becomes more difficult as the playing field gets tilted ever more in favour of those who are getting effective distance learning and against those who aren't.
    The problem is, for the reasons you give to avoid cancelling exams we need to have sensible planning for distance learning and catch up sessions from April onwards. And that just hasn’t happened. Some students have actually missed around 60% of the normal teaching time they would have had for their GCSEs. Others, hardly anything. How can you make a judgement about their ability based on a common exam under the circumstances?

    What worries me is not so much cancelling them but the fact that it is becoming absolutely painfully obvious that nobody has thought of alternative forms of assessment. If History, Geography, English, languages and the creative arts had been switched to externally moderated coursework - a perfectly feasible option - it might just have been possible to salvage exams for maths and science. But nobody made the effort to think and have plans in place.

    Edit - incidentally if it’s a ‘no brainer’ the government still won’t do it, as while they have no brains they are so dim even a no brainer wouldn’t compute.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,445

    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
    My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.

    "The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.

    So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.

    That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.

    For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.

    Are we any the wiser as to whether having the vaccine reduces (or eliminates) the chance that you can still pass the virus on?
    Not that I have read. It may take mass vaccination to answer the question. If we see the R rate falling then those vaccinated are not transmitting. To me it is the difference between another 50K and another 150K dead. It's that important.
    This appears to be the position:

    That particular aspect hasn’t been studied yet. “There is a theoretical risk that you could pass the virus on to others despite being vaccinated,” says Kirsten Hokeness, Ph.D., director of Bryant University’s new Center for Health and Behavioral Sciences. And we definitely need more answers before people stop wearing masks.

    But virus transmission by vaccinated people hopefully won’t be the case. “The goal of the vaccine is to create immunological memory in the body so that when you encounter the virus in the future, your immune system rapidly ramps up and attacks the virus very quickly before you get sick. Therefore, as long as the vaccine boasts a strong immunological response, it is likely that the virus will be stopped from replicating in your system pretty quickly,” Dr. Hokeness says. That would limit your ability to spread it to others. “It can happen, but the risks would be far less than if you were not vaccinated,” she says, adding that “since the vaccine requires a booster it may be that your ability to spread the virus would be greater if you only got one dose, but there is not data available yet that would suggest that that is the case.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Nope.

    Scotland had two choices in 2014

    a) you are part of the U.K. demos
    b) you are a distinct demos

    You chose (a)

    Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.

    The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
  • Options

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
    If you don't vote you don't get a say.

    But one amusing statistic is that fewer voted to Remain in the EU in 2016 than voted to remain in the UK in 2014.

    So don't assume Scots are more pro-EU than pro-UK.

    But those who chose not to vote don't get to complain or get added to either side.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,904
    tlg86 said:

    TSE has hacked into bigjohnowls's account.

    tlg86 said:

    TSE has hacked into bigjohnowls's account.

    I still have 64% control of it.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,904
    AV thread anyone?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hancock dropping a hint that schools may not be re-opening after all

    I have been very keen on the schools remaining open because the consequences for children's education, especially those from poorer backgrounds, have been horrendous. But in the face of the new variant and with mass vaccination under way keeping them closed for January is a no brainer, it really is.

    The knock on consequences may well be the cancellation of exams in England and Wales, just as we have suffered in Scotland. I think that this could still be avoided but it unquestionably becomes more difficult as the playing field gets tilted ever more in favour of those who are getting effective distance learning and against those who aren't.
    The problem is, for the reasons you give to avoid cancelling exams we need to have sensible planning for distance learning and catch up sessions from April onwards. And that just hasn’t happened. Some students have actually missed around 60% of the normal teaching time they would have had for their GCSEs. Others, hardly anything. How can you make a judgement about their ability based on a common exam under the circumstances?

    What worries me is not so much cancelling them but the fact that it is becoming absolutely painfully obvious that nobody has thought of alternative forms of assessment. If History, Geography, English, languages and the creative arts had been switched to externally moderated coursework - a perfectly feasible option - it might just have been possible to salvage exams for maths and science. But nobody made the effort to think and have plans in place.

    Edit - incidentally if it’s a ‘no brainer’ the government still won’t do it, as while they have no brains they are so dim even a no brainer wouldn’t compute.
    Hancock started to answer the question this morning, but stopped himself after suggesting new restrictions on education would be needed, saying that our Gav will announce the details later. My guess is a delayed opening for the new term, perhaps with teachers vaccinated meanwhile.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,904
    Wonder when Pfizer will be available to buy?
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
    My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.

    "The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.

    So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.

    That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
    The country did not democratically.

    The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.

    So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.

    That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hancock dropping a hint that schools may not be re-opening after all

    I have been very keen on the schools remaining open because the consequences for children's education, especially those from poorer backgrounds, have been horrendous. But in the face of the new variant and with mass vaccination under way keeping them closed for January is a no brainer, it really is.

    The knock on consequences may well be the cancellation of exams in England and Wales, just as we have suffered in Scotland. I think that this could still be avoided but it unquestionably becomes more difficult as the playing field gets tilted ever more in favour of those who are getting effective distance learning and against those who aren't.
    The problem is, for the reasons you give to avoid cancelling exams we need to have sensible planning for distance learning and catch up sessions from April onwards. And that just hasn’t happened. Some students have actually missed around 60% of the normal teaching time they would have had for their GCSEs. Others, hardly anything. How can you make a judgement about their ability based on a common exam under the circumstances?

    What worries me is not so much cancelling them but the fact that it is becoming absolutely painfully obvious that nobody has thought of alternative forms of assessment. If History, Geography, English, languages and the creative arts had been switched to externally moderated coursework - a perfectly feasible option - it might just have been possible to salvage exams for maths and science. But nobody made the effort to think and have plans in place.

    Edit - incidentally if it’s a ‘no brainer’ the government still won’t do it, as while they have no brains they are so dim even a no brainer wouldn’t compute.
    I completely agree. I don't have a fetish for exams as such but I do for external moderation and assessment. Scotland should have gone the same way but no, we are simply accepting school assessments with some random "sampling" to ensure standards are being maintained (stop sniggering at the back).

    My wife taught for many years at College in subjects with no external assessment. The results were pitiful and I had great sympathy for any student who either took their subjects seriously or thought that the piece of paper handed out at the end had any value. Last year, after the collapse of the exam system and the algorithm we had record numbers of A passes devaluing everyone's achievements. We are set to do exactly the same again.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
    There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
    And how much longer before Scotland joins the EU
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
    If you don't vote you don't get a say.

    But one amusing statistic is that fewer voted to Remain in the EU in 2016 than voted to remain in the UK in 2014.

    So don't assume Scots are more pro-EU than pro-UK.

    But those who chose not to vote don't get to complain or get added to either side.
    Sadly in our country most people vote and still dont get a say.
  • Options
    RH1992RH1992 Posts: 788
    edited December 2020
    Whenever someone from Independent SAGE comes on TV I find myself getting quite annoyed. I'm all in favour of tighter restrictions but whenever that group or someone from that group gives their take, it's always the same message of "lockdown everyone and everything now until 80/90% of the population is vaccinated" with badly concealed glee that the numbers are going in the wrong direction thinking it proves their point. Sir David King basically saying that on BBC News in the last few mins.

    We should definitely lock everything down for 6-8 weeks in my view, but demanding this stay in place until we've 80% of the population vaccinated shows they have no respect or understanding for those struggling from the economic effects of this.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
    There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
    Let me guess, ‘right minds’ will be those who want the nasty Natz to shut up and go away? Of course many of those right minds were Pom Pom girls for the 4 or 5 years that the UK has endured since the EU referendum.

    Still, good to see the Unionist offer taking shape.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,445

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
    My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.

    "The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.

    So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.

    That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
    The country did not democratically.

    The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.

    So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.

    That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
    Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862

    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
    No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.

    If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.

    Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.

    For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.

    Are we any the wiser as to whether having the vaccine reduces (or eliminates) the chance that you can still pass the virus on?
    Not that I have read. It may take mass vaccination to answer the question. If we see the R rate falling then those vaccinated are not transmitting. To me it is the difference between another 50K and another 150K dead. It's that important.
    I think it is highly probable that it will reduce transmission. We won't know for a while yet, but probably will.

    The JCVI are operating on the assumption that it will - that afterall is why Care and NHS staff are in the first and second priority groupings - not to protect themselves but to protect those they work with.
    We can only hope Philip. It seems logical that a vaccine that prevents the infection of cells in the body by generating antibodies to kill the virus would reduce the quantum of virus in the body to transmit but several things I thought were logical in this pandemic have proven not to be so.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hancock dropping a hint that schools may not be re-opening after all

    I have been very keen on the schools remaining open because the consequences for children's education, especially those from poorer backgrounds, have been horrendous. But in the face of the new variant and with mass vaccination under way keeping them closed for January is a no brainer, it really is.

    The knock on consequences may well be the cancellation of exams in England and Wales, just as we have suffered in Scotland. I think that this could still be avoided but it unquestionably becomes more difficult as the playing field gets tilted ever more in favour of those who are getting effective distance learning and against those who aren't.
    The problem is, for the reasons you give to avoid cancelling exams we need to have sensible planning for distance learning and catch up sessions from April onwards. And that just hasn’t happened. Some students have actually missed around 60% of the normal teaching time they would have had for their GCSEs. Others, hardly anything. How can you make a judgement about their ability based on a common exam under the circumstances?

    What worries me is not so much cancelling them but the fact that it is becoming absolutely painfully obvious that nobody has thought of alternative forms of assessment. If History, Geography, English, languages and the creative arts had been switched to externally moderated coursework - a perfectly feasible option - it might just have been possible to salvage exams for maths and science. But nobody made the effort to think and have plans in place.

    Edit - incidentally if it’s a ‘no brainer’ the government still won’t do it, as while they have no brains they are so dim even a no brainer wouldn’t compute.
    I completely agree. I don't have a fetish for exams as such but I do for external moderation and assessment. Scotland should have gone the same way but no, we are simply accepting school assessments with some random "sampling" to ensure standards are being maintained (stop sniggering at the back).

    My wife taught for many years at College in subjects with no external assessment. The results were pitiful and I had great sympathy for any student who either took their subjects seriously or thought that the piece of paper handed out at the end had any value. Last year, after the collapse of the exam system and the algorithm we had record numbers of A passes devaluing everyone's achievements. We are set to do exactly the same again.
    I think the real problem is too many of our lords and masters actually have a positive fetish for exams.

    Exams can be useful, and accurate, and reliable as a form of assessment. But (a) current public exams are not, on the whole, and certainly would not be at this moment, and (b) there are in fact other ways of finding out how able somebody is, if used correctly, which again, we are not proposing to.

    This doesn’t suit say, Johnson, Gove or Cummings because actually exams play to their intellectual strengths as plausible blaggers and hide their enormous weaknesses, particularly an inability to gather facts and master complex details.

    And as a result, here we go again.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561
    IshmaelZ said:

    There's an old gag about someone who leaves an old fridge on the pavement for collection as rubbish and it stays there for weeks, so they put a sign on it saying "for sale £20" and it gets nicked in half an hour. Perhaps the way to ensure maximum vaccine uptake is to deliberately make it obtainable corruptly and dishonestly. Maybe even make it a class C drug.

    Or get Irvine Welsh to write a book about how cool taking it is?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
    No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.

    If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.

    Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
    There is also the utilitarian argument that those willing to pay to be vaccinated from said excess supply are most likely to be doing so in order to stimulate economic activity in some way. Most obviously, it would clearly be better for our travel industry if everyone contemplating an early summer trip this year were able to be vaccinated prior.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
    No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.

    If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.

    Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
    Pharmacies, dentists, why on Earth not mobilise everyone?. If the jabs are there, get it down quickly and simply. Alphabetical, by postcode, NI/NHS number.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
    No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.

    If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.

    Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
    There is also the utilitarian argument that those willing to pay to be vaccinated from said excess supply are most likely to be doing so in order to stimulate economic activity in some way. Most obviously, it would clearly be better for our travel industry if everyone contemplating an early summer trip this year were able to be vaccinated prior.
    Starting with pilots and onboard staff?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862

    Wonder when Pfizer will be available to buy?

    Already possible in some countries
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
    No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.

    If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.

    Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
    I do accept that and outside agencies involvement is most likely essential but not administering it to the wealthy so they can jump the queue
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
    No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.

    If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.

    Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
    There is also the utilitarian argument that those willing to pay to be vaccinated from said excess supply are most likely to be doing so in order to stimulate economic activity in some way. Most obviously, it would clearly be better for our travel industry if everyone contemplating an early summer trip this year were able to be vaccinated prior.
    Starting with pilots and onboard staff?
    Indeed - there will surely be companies of all types eager to resume 'normal' activity that would be willing to pay for their staff to get some of Foxy's spare vaccinations
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    Fishing said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There's an old gag about someone who leaves an old fridge on the pavement for collection as rubbish and it stays there for weeks, so they put a sign on it saying "for sale £20" and it gets nicked in half an hour. Perhaps the way to ensure maximum vaccine uptake is to deliberately make it obtainable corruptly and dishonestly. Maybe even make it a class C drug.

    Or get Irvine Welsh to write a book about how cool taking it is?
    Chose life, choose a vaccine...
  • Options

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
    Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
    No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.

    If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.

    Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
    Don’t the main private providers (eg ELCG) use contracted nurses? I’m not sure there is a reservoir of new trained staff to give the vaccines

    It would make sense to use the pharmacy channel but that’s only technically “private” in my view.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.

    For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.

    Are we any the wiser as to whether having the vaccine reduces (or eliminates) the chance that you can still pass the virus on?
    Not that I have read. It may take mass vaccination to answer the question. If we see the R rate falling then those vaccinated are not transmitting. To me it is the difference between another 50K and another 150K dead. It's that important.
    This appears to be the position:

    That particular aspect hasn’t been studied yet. “There is a theoretical risk that you could pass the virus on to others despite being vaccinated,” says Kirsten Hokeness, Ph.D., director of Bryant University’s new Center for Health and Behavioral Sciences. And we definitely need more answers before people stop wearing masks.

    But virus transmission by vaccinated people hopefully won’t be the case. “The goal of the vaccine is to create immunological memory in the body so that when you encounter the virus in the future, your immune system rapidly ramps up and attacks the virus very quickly before you get sick. Therefore, as long as the vaccine boasts a strong immunological response, it is likely that the virus will be stopped from replicating in your system pretty quickly,” Dr. Hokeness says. That would limit your ability to spread it to others. “It can happen, but the risks would be far less than if you were not vaccinated,” she says, adding that “since the vaccine requires a booster it may be that your ability to spread the virus would be greater if you only got one dose, but there is not data available yet that would suggest that that is the case.
    As I have said such reasoning seems entirely logical and sensible. Tens of thousands of lives are at stake so some conclusions would be helpful.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2020
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
    My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.

    "The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.

    So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.

    That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
    The country did not democratically.

    The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.

    So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.

    That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
    Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
    I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.

    The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.

    The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.

    Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
    There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
    Let me guess, ‘right minds’ will be those who want the nasty Natz to shut up and go away? Of course many of those right minds were Pom Pom girls for the 4 or 5 years that the UK has endured since the EU referendum.

    Still, good to see the Unionist offer taking shape.
    Nice to see you are so on the ball this morning Divvie.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
    No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.

    If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.

    Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
    There is also the utilitarian argument that those willing to pay to be vaccinated from said excess supply are most likely to be doing so in order to stimulate economic activity in some way. Most obviously, it would clearly be better for our travel industry if everyone contemplating an early summer trip this year were able to be vaccinated prior.
    Starting with pilots and onboard staff?
    Indeed - there will surely be companies of all types eager to resume 'normal' activity that would be willing to pay for their staff to get some of Foxy's spare vaccinations
    Although truthfully, after medical staff the group I would give the highest priority for vaccination to are those employed as cleaning staff - especially but not exclusively in hospitals, supermarkets and schools. They’re probably more at risk than anyone else by the nature of their job and yet they’re really important.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,106
    So when is the Tier 4 for all supposed to be coming in?
  • Options

    On topic.

    So now after the vaccine that works (Pfizer)

    We now have the placebo for plebs one (AZ)

    No one seriously ill out of 20000 sounds like it works extremely well even if its technical effectiveness is lower.

    I get a handful of colds each year, I don't mind if one of those happens to be covid if my chances of getting seriously ill from it is less than 1 in 20000.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
    No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.

    If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.

    Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
    I agree with this which is why I think OGH's focus on fairness is misplaced. We want as many people vaccinated as possible as quickly as possible. Period.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
    My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.

    "The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.

    So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.

    That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
    The country did not democratically.

    The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.

    So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.

    That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
    Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
    I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.

    The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.

    The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.

    Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
    Technical point Lisbon was not in the 2005 manifesto. Brexit binds its successors more than Lisbon ever did.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
    Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
    It wasn’t a lie.

    At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).

    No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512

    So when is the Tier 4 for all supposed to be coming in?

    Announcement by Hancock after the parliamentary vote at 2.30pm, and the debate which the clown is any second about to open. But Hancock suggested earlier that he will be extending T4, but not universally.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
    There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
    🙋🏻‍♂

    Do most Brexiteers regret what the country has endured in the last 4 to 5 years? Or do they view it as a price worth paying to get laws applying to this country made in this country?

    Seems logical for the Scots to do the same.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,854
    Have we covered Congressman-elect Letlow's untimely COVID death yet? Obviously, a lesser political story than were it a Senator, but still deserving of a nod here.

    BBC News - Luke Letlow: Newly-elected US lawmaker, 41, dies from Covid
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55481711
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front

    I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
    I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
    No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.

    If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.

    Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
    Pharmacies, dentists, why on Earth not mobilise everyone?. If the jabs are there, get it down quickly and simply. Alphabetical, by postcode, NI/NHS number.
    Zinedine Zidane is not happy with your proposal.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    FPT
    CarlottaVance said:

    » show previous quotes
    So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?

    Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.

    Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
    Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
    There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news.

    Sorry to go OT but FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Fantastic news to wake up to. :smile:

    It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
    No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.

    The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.

    Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.

    Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
    My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.

    "The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.

    So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.

    That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
    The country did not democratically.

    The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.

    So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.

    That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
    Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
    I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.

    The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.

    The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.

    Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
    How did the EU make laws irreversible? Any EU law can be replaced by another EU law in the same way that any UK law can. Of course one part of the EU cannot change it unilaterally, just as Lincolnshire can't unilaterally change UK law. What's wrong with that?
    The UK is too small to deal with the big problems on its own, and too big to be responsive to local concerns, like those of London. It's absurd to fetishise one layer of decision making (the nation state) over all others - especially when the nation state is as dysfunctional and shit as ours.
This discussion has been closed.