What exactly does “vassal” of the EU mean? What a ridiculous notion.
The U.K. (despite the odd aircraft carrier) is essentially a regional power. Our region is Europe.
Logically speaking (and accepting that this country is not acting very logically at present), we likely have two outstanding foreign policy goals.
1. Safeguarding and further promoting London’s role as a/the global financial capital, which means supporting the global rules that underpin London’s position.
2. Deterring Russia, using both hard and soft power to delegitimise and defend against the current regime.
Beyond that; we have an interest in stability in MENA, and ought to be cooperating with Europe on refugee support and deterrence. We still have both hard and soft power assets in the Middle East.
China is really more of an issue for the USA, Japan, Australia and India. Obviously China is not a military threat to the U.K., and our influence there is not significant. However, for ideological and historical (Hong Kong) reasons it will be difficult to ignore China’s various abuses and provocations. I think the current government is set on an anti-China course, but I worry this is to appease the USA rather than for coherent reasons of our own.
Why is the UK a regional and not global power?
We are a global leader in finance. We trade globally - the majority of our exports already going to the rest of the world before we rebalance further post Brexit. We are a permanent UNSC power. We are a G7 economic nation. We have a global military alliance and are one of the world's leading military powers. We have a global espionage network and global Five Eyes alliance.
The UK has always been globally not regionally oriented.
Because we aren’t.
Since 1989 there has only been one true global power: the USA.
Even China is not (yet) a global power in the sense of being able to project significant force anywhere in the world.
No. Since 1989 there has only been on true global superpower: the USA.
The UK is not a superpower, of course not. But we are a global power.
If you want to pretend we're not a global power then there's no reason to still call us a regional one. Just pretend there are no regional ones either. But that's a nonsense because the premise is a nonsense.
In every way we are a regional power, we are also a global one.
I think you are just being pedantic.
Whatever you call it, the great bulk of Britain’s hard power capability is and should be focused on our own neighbourhood.
We do not have the money to fund ambitious strategies elsewhere.
That means engaging in European issues, and naturally enough it means engaging v closely with the EU.
Why?
Our interests are not located in our own neighbourhood.
When it comes to the things that matter on the global stage - finance, trade, the military, espionage etc - the majority of our attention is and always has been global.
Our own neighbourhood is peaceful and settled. We have no "hard power" to exert or that we need to exert in our own continent. We aren't fighting the French, we don't primarily need to spy on the Germans, the Irish aren't our enemies.
Our Five Eyes alliance, our military deployments, our financial transactions and the majority of our trade are all global. That is where our hard power is deployed. That is where it needs to be deloyed.
There is actually pretty strong evidence of a First Term incumbency boost for new MPs.Stretching back to 1959, quite a few Tory gains from that year were held in 1964, and two - Briereley Hill and Lowestoft - stayed Tory even in 1966. Similarly Labour held on to several 1966 gains in 1970 - Plymouth Sutton and Brentford & Chiswick being examples. Rugby was a surprise Tory hold in 1964 - and a surprise Labour hold in 1970!
How do you separate such holds from the drift of the constituency itself in a particular political direction? When we see a replacement from the same party, often the trend continues.
How much difference is there between swings in such seats as when incumbents stand again?
The effect tends to be most apparent when a seat changes hands at a by election. Almost invariably the successful candidate obtains a significantly bigger swing for his/her party at the following General Election than would have been likely in the absence of a by election. By elections such as Orpington in 1962, Middlesborough West 1962, Roxburgh Selkirk & Peebles 1965 , Walthamstow West 1967 , Bromsgrove 1971, Berwick upon Tweed 1973,Ashfield 1977 provide clear examples of this. More recently in my own seat of Norwich North the very popular Old Labour MP Ian Gibson felt obliged to resign when implicated in the Expenses scandal in mid-2009. At the subsequent by election , Chloe Smith achieved a 17.5% swing to take the seat for the Tories.Despite adverse boundary changes, she held the seat comfortably in 2010 on a 10% swing from 2005 - twice the national average for that election.The Tories benefiited from both the loss of Ian Gibson's personal vote and such a vote beginning to accumulate for the new MP.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
I'm sorry I didn't give a balanced collection of terrorist organisations when expressing my disbelief.
I'm sure it is an amazingly complex task to design and construct such a vessel, but it doesn't seem too much to ask that it can spend a little more time at sea than that. Just think of the alternate history where the government had been able to cancel it like they wanted to.
Perhaps Dura Ace can give an expert view but I’ve wondered if the compartmentalised build with sections pulled together from all over the UK has anything to do with it? Maybe that’s the only way capital ships can be built nowadays in the UK.
Pretty much everything bigger than a bath toy is built that way these days - civil or military.
Google for some of the videos from the South Korean yards - multi-thousand ton chunks of ship manoeuvred to literally millimetric accuracy for welding together.
I’m not surprised at that, but wouldn’t a carrier be several times more complex than say a tanker? Would these SK yards have sections built and floated several hundred miles to the final construction site?
Had a quick look at the build of the USS Gerald Ford on Wiki and it says it was a modular build though it implies it was mostly at the same yard.
More complex - yes. All kind of interesting stuff. Like designing bulkhead doors that don't turn in "fragments" when a big bang happens. "Fragment" being a euphemism for flying across a space, turning people into strawberry jam....
I got interested in this while working for an oil company. Ended up talking with some fascinating people. Including an ancient Norwegian tanker captain (retired, but would come in for consultancy), who as a boy, had crewed tankers round the North Cape. In WWII....
It's easier and faster to build in modules and weld together. Has been, since Kaiser was a ship builder, not a monarch.
Sometimes the modules are made in different countries - there are some startling transport options out there.
Putting aside the specific results in terms of which party is up and which is down, the most interesting thing about the MRP poll is that it puts Labour just behind on seats while being 2.1% ahead on votes.
Tory votes do seem to be optimally distributed at present. Makes Labour's task extra difficult.
One thing it makes me wonder is if the Americans may be on to something in having everyone, not just the elderly, get the annual flu jab.
Presumably if you go decades as a healthy young adult without often catching the flu or getting the vaccine then you will surely have little acquired immunity to variants of the flu by the time you become a vulnerable old one? You get the flu vaccine then when you're old but it may not be the right strain and presumably you lack decades of other strains?
Whereas presumably the Americans who go decades getting annual flu jabs will have more of a repository of acquired immunity, from not just this year's targeted strains but decades of prior targeted strains?
It isn't it's utter rot. When you cough, it's because your immune system is destroying lung cells that have been infected and made into virus replicators. You then cough them out surrounded by mucus. The author wants to suppress that? Cretinous tripe.
What exactly does “vassal” of the EU mean? What a ridiculous notion.
The U.K. (despite the odd aircraft carrier) is essentially a regional power. Our region is Europe.
Logically speaking (and accepting that this country is not acting very logically at present), we likely have two outstanding foreign policy goals.
1. Safeguarding and further promoting London’s role as a/the global financial capital, which means supporting the global rules that underpin London’s position.
2. Deterring Russia, using both hard and soft power to delegitimise and defend against the current regime.
Beyond that; we have an interest in stability in MENA, and ought to be cooperating with Europe on refugee support and deterrence. We still have both hard and soft power assets in the Middle East.
China is really more of an issue for the USA, Japan, Australia and India. Obviously China is not a military threat to the U.K., and our influence there is not significant. However, for ideological and historical (Hong Kong) reasons it will be difficult to ignore China’s various abuses and provocations. I think the current government is set on an anti-China course, but I worry this is to appease the USA rather than for coherent reasons of our own.
Why is the UK a regional and not global power?
We are a global leader in finance. We trade globally - the majority of our exports already going to the rest of the world before we rebalance further post Brexit. We are a permanent UNSC power. We are a G7 economic nation. We have a global military alliance and are one of the world's leading military powers. We have a global espionage network and global Five Eyes alliance.
The UK has always been globally not regionally oriented.
Because we aren’t.
Since 1989 there has only been one true global power: the USA.
Even China is not (yet) a global power in the sense of being able to project significant force anywhere in the world.
No. Since 1989 there has only been on true global superpower: the USA.
The UK is not a superpower, of course not. But we are a global power.
If you want to pretend we're not a global power then there's no reason to still call us a regional one. Just pretend there are no regional ones either. But that's a nonsense because the premise is a nonsense.
In every way we are a regional power, we are also a global one.
I think you are just being pedantic.
Whatever you call it, the great bulk of Britain’s hard power capability is and should be focused on our own neighbourhood.
We do not have the money to fund ambitious strategies elsewhere.
That means engaging in European issues, and naturally enough it means engaging v closely with the EU.
Why?
Our interests are not located in our own neighbourhood.
When it comes to the things that matter on the global stage - finance, trade, the military, espionage etc - the majority of our attention is and always has been global.
Our own neighbourhood is peaceful and settled. We have no "hard power" to exert or that we need to exert in our own continent. We aren't fighting the French, we don't primarily need to spy on the Germans, the Irish aren't our enemies.
Our Five Eyes alliance, our military deployments, our financial transactions and the majority of our trade are all global. That is where our hard power is deployed. That is where it needs to be deloyed.
Russia is in our neighbourhood, so no I would not describe it as peaceful and settled.
You seem to be suggesting we should be everywhere at once, but that’s not a strategy.
I'm sure it is an amazingly complex task to design and construct such a vessel, but it doesn't seem too much to ask that it can spend a little more time at sea than that. Just think of the alternate history where the government had been able to cancel it like they wanted to.
Perhaps Dura Ace can give an expert view but I’ve wondered if the compartmentalised build with sections pulled together from all over the UK has anything to do with it? Maybe that’s the only way capital ships can be built nowadays in the UK.
Ships are built in blocks anyway even if they're all made in the same shipyard so that doesn't make them more leaky. Every ship ever built leaks... "Float she may, but shine she must," as some old salthorse told me when I was doing my watchkeeping ticket.
Nobody is saying what caused the PoW leak but previous incidents of this type have been caused by the new 'lean' crewing practices and the shortage of clankies in the RN. HMS Endurance would have sank in the South Atlantic in 2006 if she weren't rescued by the Chilean Navy for this reason; seawater leak caused by lack of engineering expertise. Also half the ships complement were alcoholics who would only wear flip-flops so that can't have helped.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
I'm sorry I didn't give a balanced collection of terrorist organisations when expressing my disbelief.
That’s what I have been trying to warn you of pal, sloppiness.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
I'm sorry I didn't give a balanced collection of terrorist organisations when expressing my disbelief.
That’s what I have been trying to warn you of pal, sloppiness.
Come off it, what on earth could radicalisation training be useful for when you spend about five minutes with each person?
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
Of course you are correct that there will be regional variations, because the age distribution is not identical within each postcode.
I believe statistically this is true which bodes well for the Conservatives in 2024. However, I suspect the aftermath of the pandemic and whether we all feel cheered or downcast over "deal done" Brexit plays out nationally. How all this works out and for whom is debatable.
Johnson is a unique politician. However incompetent, capricious and lazy he appears, the punters love him. So will he and the Conservatives take the blame for the economic chaos, or the plaudits for ending the pandemic? My own view is, any other political figure would be crucified on the back of all the unemployment, poverty and financial ruin that is heading our way. However, any other political figure would end their political career, caught in mid air on a zip wire. Therefore I am convinced the next election hinges on the national picture and the fortunes or otherwise of the incumbent leader and their party rather than constituency MPs
I have no doubt he strikes a chord with ESN voters - ie Educationally Sub Normal.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
I dunno. But if they cannot be arsed to be paid to watch a video and answer a few questions, then you have to question their motivation surely?
Or if they can't do Diversity Soduku, their ability to find a patient, find their arm etc....
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
I'm sorry I didn't give a balanced collection of terrorist organisations when expressing my disbelief.
Perhaps you need to do the unconscious bias training then 😆
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
After the video, the questions are multiple choice. If you fail, you just re-do it again and again.
So, it is easy to write a computer script to work through all the possibilities
The computer passes its radicalisation prevention exam, and you are then fully accredited to start jabbing.
What exactly does “vassal” of the EU mean? What a ridiculous notion.
The U.K. (despite the odd aircraft carrier) is essentially a regional power. Our region is Europe.
Logically speaking (and accepting that this country is not acting very logically at present), we likely have two outstanding foreign policy goals.
1. Safeguarding and further promoting London’s role as a/the global financial capital, which means supporting the global rules that underpin London’s position.
2. Deterring Russia, using both hard and soft power to delegitimise and defend against the current regime.
Beyond that; we have an interest in stability in MENA, and ought to be cooperating with Europe on refugee support and deterrence. We still have both hard and soft power assets in the Middle East.
China is really more of an issue for the USA, Japan, Australia and India. Obviously China is not a military threat to the U.K., and our influence there is not significant. However, for ideological and historical (Hong Kong) reasons it will be difficult to ignore China’s various abuses and provocations. I think the current government is set on an anti-China course, but I worry this is to appease the USA rather than for coherent reasons of our own.
Why is the UK a regional and not global power?
We are a global leader in finance. We trade globally - the majority of our exports already going to the rest of the world before we rebalance further post Brexit. We are a permanent UNSC power. We are a G7 economic nation. We have a global military alliance and are one of the world's leading military powers. We have a global espionage network and global Five Eyes alliance.
The UK has always been globally not regionally oriented.
Because we aren’t.
Since 1989 there has only been one true global power: the USA.
Even China is not (yet) a global power in the sense of being able to project significant force anywhere in the world.
No. Since 1989 there has only been on true global superpower: the USA.
The UK is not a superpower, of course not. But we are a global power.
If you want to pretend we're not a global power then there's no reason to still call us a regional one. Just pretend there are no regional ones either. But that's a nonsense because the premise is a nonsense.
In every way we are a regional power, we are also a global one.
I think you are just being pedantic.
Whatever you call it, the great bulk of Britain’s hard power capability is and should be focused on our own neighbourhood.
We do not have the money to fund ambitious strategies elsewhere.
That means engaging in European issues, and naturally enough it means engaging v closely with the EU.
Why?
Our interests are not located in our own neighbourhood.
When it comes to the things that matter on the global stage - finance, trade, the military, espionage etc - the majority of our attention is and always has been global.
Our own neighbourhood is peaceful and settled. We have no "hard power" to exert or that we need to exert in our own continent. We aren't fighting the French, we don't primarily need to spy on the Germans, the Irish aren't our enemies.
Our Five Eyes alliance, our military deployments, our financial transactions and the majority of our trade are all global. That is where our hard power is deployed. That is where it needs to be deloyed.
Russia is in our neighbourhood, so no I would not describe it as peaceful and settled.
You seem to be suggesting we should be everywhere at once, but that’s not a strategy.
Russia is more global than the EU western and central Europe idea.
As for being everwhere at once, with our friends and allies, it absolutely is a strategy.
The five eyes alliance spans around the globe which is where our interests lie. The entire planet can be accessed in seconds via communication and hours via flights.
The idea we can pull up the borders of our local continuent and act like a turtle retreating into its shell and hoping the rest of the world ignores us is just a puerile idea that doesn't fit for the 21st century.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
I'm sorry I didn't give a balanced collection of terrorist organisations when expressing my disbelief.
That’s what I have been trying to warn you of pal, sloppiness.
Come off it, what on earth could radicalisation training be useful for when you spend about five minutes with each person?
You made a really good idea below, tie radicalisation training in with the jab session. Two birds one stone as Chairman Mao would say.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
I'm sorry I didn't give a balanced collection of terrorist organisations when expressing my disbelief.
Perhaps you need to do the unconscious bias training then 😆
I'm personally happy to do it whilst I am unconscious, if that would help.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
I'm sorry I didn't give a balanced collection of terrorist organisations when expressing my disbelief.
That’s what I have been trying to warn you of pal, sloppiness.
Come off it, what on earth could radicalisation training be useful for when you spend about five minutes with each person?
Well, one could legitimately ask why this government made it compulsory...
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
After the video, the questions are multiple choice. If you fail, you just re-do it again and again.
So, it is easy to write a computer script to work through all the possibilities
The computer passes its radicalisation prevention exam, and you are then fully accredited to start jabbing.
So exactly like all the compliance training in Finance.
Putting aside the specific results in terms of which party is up and which is down, the most interesting thing about the MRP poll is that it puts Labour just behind on seats while being 2.1% ahead on votes.
Tory votes do seem to be optimally distributed at present. Makes Labour's task extra difficult.
I believe statistically this is true which bodes well for the Conservatives in 2024. However, I suspect the aftermath of the pandemic and whether we all feel cheered or downcast over "deal done" Brexit plays out nationally. How all this works out and for whom is debatable.
Johnson is a unique politician. However incompetent, capricious and lazy he appears, the punters love him. So will he and the Conservatives take the blame for the economic chaos, or the plaudits for ending the pandemic? My own view is, any other political figure would be crucified on the back of all the unemployment, poverty and financial ruin that is heading our way. However, any other political figure would end their political career, caught in mid air on a zip wire. Therefore I am convinced the next election hinges on the national picture and the fortunes or otherwise of the incumbent leader and their party rather than constituency MPs
I have no doubt he strikes a chord with ESN voters - ie Educationally Sub Normal.
Watching that 'Death to 2020' Netflix special, is it just me or is Hugh Grant a much, much better actor than he was 20 years ago, even as he is more annoying as a person?
Yes, I think he has become a much better actor since escaping floppy haired leading man roles.
One of the best things about him is that he really doesn’t give a fuck about how he looks. That and the remainery, Tory-enraging, incipient wokeness of course.
He’s always been a decent actor; it’s just that in recent years he’s started to get more interesting roles. As with most actors, unless they’re completely beyond the pale, I couldn’t give much of a crap about their politics.
When bad actors become politicians, there’s a bit more of an overlap.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
After the video, the questions are multiple choice. If you fail, you just re-do it again and again.
So, it is easy to write a computer script to work through all the possibilities
The computer passes its radicalisation prevention exam, and you are then fully accredited to start jabbing.
There is an argument that if you know the answers to all the questions, which are a random selection of 12 from a larger pool, then you know the subject.
It is why my College isn't too bothered by MCQs leaking after exams.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
Watching that 'Death to 2020' Netflix special, is it just me or is Hugh Grant a much, much better actor than he was 20 years ago, even as he is more annoying as a person?
Yes, I think he has become a much better actor since escaping floppy haired leading man roles.
One of the best things about him is that he really doesn’t give a fuck about how he looks. That and the remainery, Tory-enraging, incipient wokeness of course.
Funny how the Tories have gone back to the pre Cameron days. All that effort by him and his side-kick Steve Hilton-now himself a right-wing nutter-to show they had changed. Seems like a long time ago.
What exactly does “vassal” of the EU mean? What a ridiculous notion.
The U.K. (despite the odd aircraft carrier) is essentially a regional power. Our region is Europe.
Logically speaking (and accepting that this country is not acting very logically at present), we likely have two outstanding foreign policy goals.
1. Safeguarding and further promoting London’s role as a/the global financial capital, which means supporting the global rules that underpin London’s position.
2. Deterring Russia, using both hard and soft power to delegitimise and defend against the current regime.
Beyond that; we have an interest in stability in MENA, and ought to be cooperating with Europe on refugee support and deterrence. We still have both hard and soft power assets in the Middle East.
China is really more of an issue for the USA, Japan, Australia and India. Obviously China is not a military threat to the U.K., and our influence there is not significant. However, for ideological and historical (Hong Kong) reasons it will be difficult to ignore China’s various abuses and provocations. I think the current government is set on an anti-China course, but I worry this is to appease the USA rather than for coherent reasons of our own.
Why is the UK a regional and not global power?
We are a global leader in finance. We trade globally - the majority of our exports already going to the rest of the world before we rebalance further post Brexit. We are a permanent UNSC power. We are a G7 economic nation. We have a global military alliance and are one of the world's leading military powers. We have a global espionage network and global Five Eyes alliance.
The UK has always been globally not regionally oriented.
Because we aren’t.
Since 1989 there has only been one true global power: the USA.
Even China is not (yet) a global power in the sense of being able to project significant force anywhere in the world.
No. Since 1989 there has only been on true global superpower: the USA.
The UK is not a superpower, of course not. But we are a global power.
If you want to pretend we're not a global power then there's no reason to still call us a regional one. Just pretend there are no regional ones either. But that's a nonsense because the premise is a nonsense.
In every way we are a regional power, we are also a global one.
I think you are just being pedantic.
Whatever you call it, the great bulk of Britain’s hard power capability is and should be focused on our own neighbourhood.
We do not have the money to fund ambitious strategies elsewhere.
That means engaging in European issues, and naturally enough it means engaging v closely with the EU.
Why?
Our interests are not located in our own neighbourhood.
When it comes to the things that matter on the global stage - finance, trade, the military, espionage etc - the majority of our attention is and always has been global.
Our own neighbourhood is peaceful and settled. We have no "hard power" to exert or that we need to exert in our own continent. We aren't fighting the French, we don't primarily need to spy on the Germans, the Irish aren't our enemies.
Our Five Eyes alliance, our military deployments, our financial transactions and the majority of our trade are all global. That is where our hard power is deployed. That is where it needs to be deloyed.
Russia is in our neighbourhood, so no I would not describe it as peaceful and settled.
You seem to be suggesting we should be everywhere at once, but that’s not a strategy.
Russia is more global than the EU western and central Europe idea.
As for being everwhere at once, with our friends and allies, it absolutely is a strategy.
The five eyes alliance spans around the globe which is where our interests lie. The entire planet can be accessed in seconds via communication and hours via flights.
The idea we can pull up the borders of our local continuent and act like a turtle retreating into its shell and hoping the rest of the world ignores us is just a puerile idea that doesn't fit for the 21st century.
We live in a world where nuclear weapons are 30 minutes. From everywhere. To everywhere.
And if Elon Musk gets his way, passenger flight will be 30 minutes. From everywhere. To everywhere.
{over the tannoy}"...To the everlasting glory of the Infantry...."{/over the tannoy}
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
What makes you say that it was "the lower tear [sic] places"?
What exactly does “vassal” of the EU mean? What a ridiculous notion.
The U.K. (despite the odd aircraft carrier) is essentially a regional power. Our region is Europe.
Logically speaking (and accepting that this country is not acting very logically at present), we likely have two outstanding foreign policy goals.
1. Safeguarding and further promoting London’s role as a/the global financial capital, which means supporting the global rules that underpin London’s position.
2. Deterring Russia, using both hard and soft power to delegitimise and defend against the current regime.
Beyond that; we have an interest in stability in MENA, and ought to be cooperating with Europe on refugee support and deterrence. We still have both hard and soft power assets in the Middle East.
China is really more of an issue for the USA, Japan, Australia and India. Obviously China is not a military threat to the U.K., and our influence there is not significant. However, for ideological and historical (Hong Kong) reasons it will be difficult to ignore China’s various abuses and provocations. I think the current government is set on an anti-China course, but I worry this is to appease the USA rather than for coherent reasons of our own.
Why is the UK a regional and not global power?
We are a global leader in finance. We trade globally - the majority of our exports already going to the rest of the world before we rebalance further post Brexit. We are a permanent UNSC power. We are a G7 economic nation. We have a global military alliance and are one of the world's leading military powers. We have a global espionage network and global Five Eyes alliance.
The UK has always been globally not regionally oriented.
Because we aren’t.
Since 1989 there has only been one true global power: the USA.
Even China is not (yet) a global power in the sense of being able to project significant force anywhere in the world.
No. Since 1989 there has only been on true global superpower: the USA.
The UK is not a superpower, of course not. But we are a global power.
If you want to pretend we're not a global power then there's no reason to still call us a regional one. Just pretend there are no regional ones either. But that's a nonsense because the premise is a nonsense.
In every way we are a regional power, we are also a global one.
I think you are just being pedantic.
Whatever you call it, the great bulk of Britain’s hard power capability is and should be focused on our own neighbourhood.
We do not have the money to fund ambitious strategies elsewhere.
That means engaging in European issues, and naturally enough it means engaging v closely with the EU.
Why?
Our interests are not located in our own neighbourhood.
When it comes to the things that matter on the global stage - finance, trade, the military, espionage etc - the majority of our attention is and always has been global.
Our own neighbourhood is peaceful and settled. We have no "hard power" to exert or that we need to exert in our own continent. We aren't fighting the French, we don't primarily need to spy on the Germans, the Irish aren't our enemies.
Our Five Eyes alliance, our military deployments, our financial transactions and the majority of our trade are all global. That is where our hard power is deployed. That is where it needs to be deloyed.
Russia is in our neighbourhood, so no I would not describe it as peaceful and settled.
You seem to be suggesting we should be everywhere at once, but that’s not a strategy.
Russia is more global than the EU western and central Europe idea.
As for being everwhere at once, with our friends and allies, it absolutely is a strategy.
The five eyes alliance spans around the globe which is where our interests lie. The entire planet can be accessed in seconds via communication and hours via flights.
The idea we can pull up the borders of our local continuent and act like a turtle retreating into its shell and hoping the rest of the world ignores us is just a puerile idea that doesn't fit for the 21st century.
We live in a world where nuclear weapons are 30 minutes. From everywhere. To everywhere.
And if Elon Musk gets his way, passenger flight will be 30 minutes. From everywhere. To everywhere.
{over the tannoy}"...To the everlasting glory of the Infantry...."{/over the tannoy}
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
What makes you say that it was "the lower tear [sic] places"?
What makes you say it wasn’t?
Doesn’t NHS post code lottery mean good news for posh areas crap news for poor areas?
Trying to see some positives in the prevailing gloom.
1. Mutant covid is highly contagious - but so far appears no more deadly (and maybe less so?) than the earlier version. It threatens to overwhelm the NHS because of its contagiousness but also moves us nearer and quicker to herd immunity, secondary to infection.
2. 1 million UK people have had 1st covid jabs and the next few months should see that number increase hugely moving us quicker and nearer to herd immunity, secondary to vaccination.
1+2 = herd immunity occurs sooner than currently projected?
I don't think the Prevent training should be a prerequisite for the hiring of vaccinators. However, I also don't think those who are complaining about the bureaucracy of the process and all the hoops that have to be jumped through are right. Surely the appointment process has to be very stringent, including ID checks, to make sure that absolutely no fantasists, general nutters or anti-vaxx ideologues slip through the net with the intention of doing harm?
Watching that 'Death to 2020' Netflix special, is it just me or is Hugh Grant a much, much better actor than he was 20 years ago, even as he is more annoying as a person?
Yes, I think he has become a much better actor since escaping floppy haired leading man roles.
One of the best things about him is that he really doesn’t give a fuck about how he looks. That and the remainery, Tory-enraging, incipient wokeness of course.
Funny how the Tories have gone back to the pre Cameron days. All that effort by him and his side-kick Steve Hilton-now himself a right-wing nutter-to show they had changed. Seems like a long time ago.
Toryism will always out, despite all the polishing.
What exactly does “vassal” of the EU mean? What a ridiculous notion.
The U.K. (despite the odd aircraft carrier) is essentially a regional power. Our region is Europe.
Logically speaking (and accepting that this country is not acting very logically at present), we likely have two outstanding foreign policy goals.
1. Safeguarding and further promoting London’s role as a/the global financial capital, which means supporting the global rules that underpin London’s position.
2. Deterring Russia, using both hard and soft power to delegitimise and defend against the current regime.
Beyond that; we have an interest in stability in MENA, and ought to be cooperating with Europe on refugee support and deterrence. We still have both hard and soft power assets in the Middle East.
China is really more of an issue for the USA, Japan, Australia and India. Obviously China is not a military threat to the U.K., and our influence there is not significant. However, for ideological and historical (Hong Kong) reasons it will be difficult to ignore China’s various abuses and provocations. I think the current government is set on an anti-China course, but I worry this is to appease the USA rather than for coherent reasons of our own.
Why is the UK a regional and not global power?
We are a global leader in finance. We trade globally - the majority of our exports already going to the rest of the world before we rebalance further post Brexit. We are a permanent UNSC power. We are a G7 economic nation. We have a global military alliance and are one of the world's leading military powers. We have a global espionage network and global Five Eyes alliance.
The UK has always been globally not regionally oriented.
Because we aren’t.
Since 1989 there has only been one true global power: the USA.
Even China is not (yet) a global power in the sense of being able to project significant force anywhere in the world.
I think we are by virtue of having nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the security council. I also think the UK may begin insisting that the EU be barred from G7 meetings along with the other non-EU nations, or they send a representative in lieu of France, Italy or Germany. I do expect things to become a little bit more us vs them for a while, even with a deal.
What do you think Biden would say if we asked to exclude the EU from G7 meetings?
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
What makes you say that it was "the lower tear [sic] places"?
What makes you say it wasn’t?
Doesn’t NHS post code lottery mean good news for posh areas crap news for poor areas?
No, it is the polar opposite, it means good news for 'poor' areas and crap news for 'posh' areas.
Poor inner cities are easy to set up for a mass vaccination setup, while also being the highest risk; rich rural areas are harder to set up for mass vaccinations, while also being the lowest risk.
Posh rural areas are the last places to get set up for a va
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
Convinced you of what? Britain is a highly mobile country centred on cities and large towns which is why the virus spreads so fast away from the cities. The higher the absolute number of people who have had the vaccine, the slower the absolute spread of the virus.
It's therefore counter-productive to vaccinate everyone within an age category in London, for example, and then stopping to wait for the rest of the country to catch up. It would make much sense to leverage the efficiency of larger urban centres to vaccinate as many people as possible, which will ultimately benefit everyone, even if that means that some areas of the country are vaccinated much quicker than others.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
What makes you say that it was "the lower tear [sic] places"?
What makes you say it wasn’t?
Doesn’t NHS post code lottery mean good news for posh areas crap news for poor areas?
No, it is the polar opposite, it means good news for 'poor' areas and crap news for 'posh' areas.
Poor inner cities are easy to set up for a mass vaccination setup, while also being the highest risk; rich rural areas are harder to set up for mass vaccinations, while also being the lowest risk.
Posh rural areas are the last places to get set up for a va
And you are sure that is what is happening?
It’s not being distributed primarily through infrastructure of GP surgeries, so happening pricesly the other way round than you presumed?
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
What makes you say that it was "the lower tear [sic] places"?
What makes you say it wasn’t?
Doesn’t NHS post code lottery mean good news for posh areas crap news for poor areas?
No, it is the polar opposite, it means good news for 'poor' areas and crap news for 'posh' areas.
Poor inner cities are easy to set up for a mass vaccination setup, while also being the highest risk; rich rural areas are harder to set up for mass vaccinations, while also being the lowest risk.
Posh rural areas are the last places to get set up for a va
And you are sure that is what is happening?
It’s not being distributed primarily through infrastructure of GP surgeries, so happening pricesly the other way round than you presumed?
In the initial stages it is being distributed first by large hospitals, then large GP surgeries and so on and so forth.
Where are large hospitals: cities or rural villages? 🤦🏻♂️
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
Convinced you of what? Britain is a highly mobile country centred on cities and large towns which is why the virus spreads so fast away from the cities. The higher the absolute number of people who have had the vaccine, the slower the absolute spread of the virus.
It's therefore counter-productive to vaccinate everyone within an age category in London, for example, and then stopping to wait for the rest of the country to catch up. It would make much sense to leverage the efficiency of larger urban centres to vaccinate as many people as possible, which will ultimately benefit everyone, even if that means that some areas of the country are vaccinated much quicker than others.
“ The higher the absolute number of people who have had the vaccine, the slower the absolute spread of the virus.”. Who they are and where they are doesn’t matter?
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
What makes you say that it was "the lower tear [sic] places"?
What makes you say it wasn’t?
Doesn’t NHS post code lottery mean good news for posh areas crap news for poor areas?
No, it is the polar opposite, it means good news for 'poor' areas and crap news for 'posh' areas.
Poor inner cities are easy to set up for a mass vaccination setup, while also being the highest risk; rich rural areas are harder to set up for mass vaccinations, while also being the lowest risk.
Posh rural areas are the last places to get set up for a va
And you are sure that is what is happening?
It’s not being distributed primarily through infrastructure of GP surgeries, so happening pricesly the other way round than you presumed?
Again, it doesn't matter in any case. The only important thing is speed. Better to pick any low-hanging fruit quickly whilst simultaneously tackling the harder or less organised areas.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
Convinced you of what? Britain is a highly mobile country centred on cities and large towns which is why the virus spreads so fast away from the cities. The higher the absolute number of people who have had the vaccine, the slower the absolute spread of the virus.
It's therefore counter-productive to vaccinate everyone within an age category in London, for example, and then stopping to wait for the rest of the country to catch up. It would make much sense to leverage the efficiency of larger urban centres to vaccinate as many people as possible, which will ultimately benefit everyone, even if that means that some areas of the country are vaccinated much quicker than others.
“ The higher the absolute number of people who have had the vaccine, the slower the absolute spread of the virus.”. Who they are and where they are doesn’t matter?
It matters less than speed. No point fannying around with fairness. We just need to get the jab into as many arms as quickly as possible.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
But radicalisation prevention training? I assume you'll be given a pep-talk about not joining Al Qaeda during your injection or something.
Its this government that made it mandatory.
It only involves watching a video and answering a few questions. Half of it is about far right terrorism btw.
I'm sorry I didn't give a balanced collection of terrorist organisations when expressing my disbelief.
That’s what I have been trying to warn you of pal, sloppiness.
Come off it, what on earth could radicalisation training be useful for when you spend about five minutes with each person?
If you have a problem with it, ask the government. Until they say otherwise (which they could do overnight if they wished), it’s illegal to do otherwise.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
Convinced you of what? Britain is a highly mobile country centred on cities and large towns which is why the virus spreads so fast away from the cities. The higher the absolute number of people who have had the vaccine, the slower the absolute spread of the virus.
It's therefore counter-productive to vaccinate everyone within an age category in London, for example, and then stopping to wait for the rest of the country to catch up. It would make much sense to leverage the efficiency of larger urban centres to vaccinate as many people as possible, which will ultimately benefit everyone, even if that means that some areas of the country are vaccinated much quicker than others.
“ The higher the absolute number of people who have had the vaccine, the slower the absolute spread of the virus.”. Who they are and where they are doesn’t matter?
It matters less than speed. No point fannying around with fairness. We just need to get the jab into as many arms as quickly as possible.
Absolutely 100%
We have a million vaccinated in this country by the time the French have around a thousand vaccinated. We need to get on to 5 million, 10 million and so on and so forth as fast as humanly possible.
Ideally catch all the right people ASAP, but better to just do more than to slow down and do it slowly for everyone but evenly.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
What makes you say that it was "the lower tear [sic] places"?
What makes you say it wasn’t?
Doesn’t NHS post code lottery mean good news for posh areas crap news for poor areas?
No, it is the polar opposite, it means good news for 'poor' areas and crap news for 'posh' areas.
Poor inner cities are easy to set up for a mass vaccination setup, while also being the highest risk; rich rural areas are harder to set up for mass vaccinations, while also being the lowest risk.
Posh rural areas are the last places to get set up for a va
And you are sure that is what is happening?
It’s not being distributed primarily through infrastructure of GP surgeries, so happening pricesly the other way round than you presumed?
Again, it doesn't matter in any case. The only important thing is speed. Better to pick any low-hanging fruit quickly whilst simultaneously tackling the harder or less organised areas.
What if on the basis you are technically correct then, but the people in the less well hanging fruit areas get agitated? Seeing low hanging fruit areas get it but less action around where they are? Would there be any “perceived” unfairness Media headlines and opposition MPs leap on to, even though as you say it’s an inaccurate bus ride?
Watching that 'Death to 2020' Netflix special, is it just me or is Hugh Grant a much, much better actor than he was 20 years ago, even as he is more annoying as a person?
Yes, I think he has become a much better actor since escaping floppy haired leading man roles.
One of the best things about him is that he really doesn’t give a fuck about how he looks. That and the remainery, Tory-enraging, incipient wokeness of course.
Funny how the Tories have gone back to the pre Cameron days. All that effort by him and his side-kick Steve Hilton-now himself a right-wing nutter-to show they had changed. Seems like a long time ago.
Very off topic.
The trouble is Roger, the voters want a nasty party now. All that stuff that Mrs May pinpointed as puting the voters off, now turns them out in their droves. It'll be hangin' and floggin' for the next election.
P.S. I am not sure how we arrived here via Hugh Grant.
Scrap the red tape for retired doctors to be able to give vaccinations.
Is this a Lazy general aim at “red tape” and bureaucracy in general completely lacking any supportable detail to your argument. Rules are there to create order out of chaos. Order helps, protects, chaos frustrated, hurts. You saying they shouldn’t have conscious bias and passive by standing refresher training before wielding the needle on armfulls of different skin colour?
Fake arguments are no argument at all. Chaff. Smokescreens. Want a real argument “roll out is post code lottery” screams the Times. That means posh sods first, Brexit voting poor areas and ethnic minorities have to wait their turn.
Mandatory training can be done online including the diversity and terrorism sections, in a day at most. It isn't much of an obstacle.
But how many are doing it tomorrow, ready to start jabbing 100's a day from Monday?
When people are called they will step up to the plate, to imply otherwise is slander?
The governments knowing post code lottery of a roll out is the REAL STORY here.
The post code lottery doesn't really matter. All that matters is absolute numbers. For example, it will be better to vaccinate everyone in major cities quickly, and then proceed to the rest of the country, rather than slowly vaccinating the whole country at a slower rate.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
You haven’t convinced me yet. By taking this lazy low hanging fruit post code lottery route it will happen precisely the other way round from what you suggest is best.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
What makes you say that it was "the lower tear [sic] places"?
What makes you say it wasn’t?
Doesn’t NHS post code lottery mean good news for posh areas crap news for poor areas?
No, it is the polar opposite, it means good news for 'poor' areas and crap news for 'posh' areas.
Poor inner cities are easy to set up for a mass vaccination setup, while also being the highest risk; rich rural areas are harder to set up for mass vaccinations, while also being the lowest risk.
Posh rural areas are the last places to get set up for a va
And you are sure that is what is happening?
It’s not being distributed primarily through infrastructure of GP surgeries, so happening pricesly the other way round than you presumed?
Again, it doesn't matter in any case. The only important thing is speed. Better to pick any low-hanging fruit quickly whilst simultaneously tackling the harder or less organised areas.
What if on the basis you are technically correct then, but the people in the less well hanging fruit areas get agitated? Seeing low hanging fruit areas get it but less action around where they are? Would there be any “perceived” unfairness Media headlines and opposition MPs leap on to, even though as you say it’s an inaccurate bus ride?
You're right of course, there will be agitation and perceived unfairness. And, well, that's where we need a leader who's calm and authoritative who can clearly explain the vaccine strategy and the benefit of speed.
Nevertheless, the key thing will be not to "unlock" areas with a high number of vaccinations whilst leaving other areas to languish with a lower number of vaccinations and continued restrictions. In my opinion, the country should maintain Tier 3/Tier 4 until it is safe to relax everywhere to avoid grievances. It will also provide an incentive to not "forget" areas.
Remarkably perceptive of the author to know that something is an expensive placebo without actually knowing what it is.
I think you're missing the point: you don't want to boost your immune system. If you boost you immune system you end up with all kinds of problems.
(Or to put it another way, far far more people have problems with overactive immune systems than underactive ones.)
I’m not sure that those who make such claims for immune system ‘boosters’ really know what they mean by ‘boost’ in this context, anyway.
Of course it’s true that if you’re seriously malnourished, or very unhealthy, then your immune system is likely to function less well, but that doesn’t seem to be what they’re talking about,
Re: implementing the covid vaccine campaign, I think rcs1000 is spot on. If the vaccines are supplied they will be applied.
There is the will to do it and there are enough people - current, returning (or trying to) or training (or planning to) - that can and will implement it.
Thompson and Gator I like what you are both saying. Unfortunately the times article contradicts what you are saying. It claims population centres are the issue, this is what it says about London - has the fewest vaccination centres per person, eight per 1 million people.
What exactly does “vassal” of the EU mean? What a ridiculous notion.
The U.K. (despite the odd aircraft carrier) is essentially a regional power. Our region is Europe.
Logically speaking (and accepting that this country is not acting very logically at present), we likely have two outstanding foreign policy goals.
1. Safeguarding and further promoting London’s role as a/the global financial capital, which means supporting the global rules that underpin London’s position.
2. Deterring Russia, using both hard and soft power to delegitimise and defend against the current regime.
Beyond that; we have an interest in stability in MENA, and ought to be cooperating with Europe on refugee support and deterrence. We still have both hard and soft power assets in the Middle East.
China is really more of an issue for the USA, Japan, Australia and India. Obviously China is not a military threat to the U.K., and our influence there is not significant. However, for ideological and historical (Hong Kong) reasons it will be difficult to ignore China’s various abuses and provocations. I think the current government is set on an anti-China course, but I worry this is to appease the USA rather than for coherent reasons of our own.
Why is the UK a regional and not global power?
We are a global leader in finance. We trade globally - the majority of our exports already going to the rest of the world before we rebalance further post Brexit. We are a permanent UNSC power. We are a G7 economic nation. We have a global military alliance and are one of the world's leading military powers. We have a global espionage network and global Five Eyes alliance.
The UK has always been globally not regionally oriented.
Indeed, this fatalist notion that the UK should be a vassal to the EU really shows how these hardcore remainers think. They love nothing about this country, they want to see us subsumed by the EU because they know that it is weaker now that we've left but will never admit it. Look at how even people like ff43 admit that the EU needs us for it's foreign policy objectives but know that we won't align now that we're independent so they only way that the EU gets our foreign policy weight behind it is to be a vassal state so that's what he's proposing.
The UK will pivot further and further away from the EU in the coming years, as Gardenwalker mentions ensuring London stays a global leader is more about following global rules, the EU wants to be a regulatory exporter but as we pivot away from them and towards APAC and America, the EU will find it will need to adjust to that to ensure easy access to London, New York and Singapore given it doesn't have any big domestic money markets.
Vassal state? Good grief.
You won!
It seems to me that what you are alluding to is that although you "won" you didn't "win" big enough.
Remarkably perceptive of the author to know that something is an expensive placebo without actually knowing what it is.
I think you're missing the point: you don't want to boost your immune system. If you boost you immune system you end up with all kinds of problems.
(Or to put it another way, far far more people have problems with overactive immune systems than underactive ones.)
I’m not sure that those who make such claims for immune system ‘boosters’ really know what they mean by ‘boost’ in this context, anyway.
Of course it’s true that if you’re seriously malnourished, or very unhealthy, then your immune system is likely to function less well, but that doesn’t seem to be what they’re talking about,
To be fair to the NYT, the published government guidance (which they linked to, and I quoted this morning), was deeply ambiguous on this point. It certainly didn’t refer to “extremely rare occasions”, and talked about avoiding wasted appointments.
But I’m glad they’ve cleared this up, even if they seem to be blaming newspapers for confusion they themselves created.
Coronavirus: BMJ urges NYT to correct vaccine 'mixing' article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55519042 .... Dr Mary Ramsay, Public Health England's head of immunisations, said: "We do not recommend mixing the Covid-19 vaccines - if your first dose is the Pfizer vaccine you should not be given the AstraZeneca vaccine for your second dose and vice versa." Dr Ramsay added that on the "extremely rare occasions" where the same vaccine is unavailable or it is unknown which jab the patient received, it is "better to give a second dose of another vaccine than not at all"....
What exactly does “vassal” of the EU mean? What a ridiculous notion.
The U.K. (despite the odd aircraft carrier) is essentially a regional power. Our region is Europe.
Logically speaking (and accepting that this country is not acting very logically at present), we likely have two outstanding foreign policy goals.
1. Safeguarding and further promoting London’s role as a/the global financial capital, which means supporting the global rules that underpin London’s position.
2. Deterring Russia, using both hard and soft power to delegitimise and defend against the current regime.
Beyond that; we have an interest in stability in MENA, and ought to be cooperating with Europe on refugee support and deterrence. We still have both hard and soft power assets in the Middle East.
China is really more of an issue for the USA, Japan, Australia and India. Obviously China is not a military threat to the U.K., and our influence there is not significant. However, for ideological and historical (Hong Kong) reasons it will be difficult to ignore China’s various abuses and provocations. I think the current government is set on an anti-China course, but I worry this is to appease the USA rather than for coherent reasons of our own.
Why is the UK a regional and not global power?
We are a global leader in finance. We trade globally - the majority of our exports already going to the rest of the world before we rebalance further post Brexit. We are a permanent UNSC power. We are a G7 economic nation. We have a global military alliance and are one of the world's leading military powers. We have a global espionage network and global Five Eyes alliance.
The UK has always been globally not regionally oriented.
Because we aren’t.
Since 1989 there has only been one true global power: the USA.
Even China is not (yet) a global power in the sense of being able to project significant force anywhere in the world.
I think we are by virtue of having nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the security council. I also think the UK may begin insisting that the EU be barred from G7 meetings along with the other non-EU nations, or they send a representative in lieu of France, Italy or Germany. I do expect things to become a little bit more us vs them for a while, even with a deal.
What do you think Biden would say if we asked to exclude the EU from G7 meetings?
What was it John Major said about the flapping of white coats?
Remarkably perceptive of the author to know that something is an expensive placebo without actually knowing what it is.
I think you're missing the point: you don't want to boost your immune system. If you boost you immune system you end up with all kinds of problems.
(Or to put it another way, far far more people have problems with overactive immune systems than underactive ones.)
I’m not sure that those who make such claims for immune system ‘boosters’ really know what they mean by ‘boost’ in this context, anyway.
Of course it’s true that if you’re seriously malnourished, or very unhealthy, then your immune system is likely to function less well, but that doesn’t seem to be what they’re talking about,
What exactly does “vassal” of the EU mean? What a ridiculous notion.
The U.K. (despite the odd aircraft carrier) is essentially a regional power. Our region is Europe.
Logically speaking (and accepting that this country is not acting very logically at present), we likely have two outstanding foreign policy goals.
1. Safeguarding and further promoting London’s role as a/the global financial capital, which means supporting the global rules that underpin London’s position.
2. Deterring Russia, using both hard and soft power to delegitimise and defend against the current regime.
Beyond that; we have an interest in stability in MENA, and ought to be cooperating with Europe on refugee support and deterrence. We still have both hard and soft power assets in the Middle East.
China is really more of an issue for the USA, Japan, Australia and India. Obviously China is not a military threat to the U.K., and our influence there is not significant. However, for ideological and historical (Hong Kong) reasons it will be difficult to ignore China’s various abuses and provocations. I think the current government is set on an anti-China course, but I worry this is to appease the USA rather than for coherent reasons of our own.
Why is the UK a regional and not global power?
We are a global leader in finance. We trade globally - the majority of our exports already going to the rest of the world before we rebalance further post Brexit. We are a permanent UNSC power. We are a G7 economic nation. We have a global military alliance and are one of the world's leading military powers. We have a global espionage network and global Five Eyes alliance.
The UK has always been globally not regionally oriented.
Indeed, this fatalist notion that the UK should be a vassal to the EU really shows how these hardcore remainers think. They love nothing about this country, they want to see us subsumed by the EU because they know that it is weaker now that we've left but will never admit it. Look at how even people like ff43 admit that the EU needs us for it's foreign policy objectives but know that we won't align now that we're independent so they only way that the EU gets our foreign policy weight behind it is to be a vassal state so that's what he's proposing.
The UK will pivot further and further away from the EU in the coming years, as Gardenwalker mentions ensuring London stays a global leader is more about following global rules, the EU wants to be a regulatory exporter but as we pivot away from them and towards APAC and America, the EU will find it will need to adjust to that to ensure easy access to London, New York and Singapore given it doesn't have any big domestic money markets.
Vassal state? Good grief.
You won!
It seems to me that what you are alluding to is that although you "won" you didn't "win" big enough.
The fight for "sovereignty" continues.
Sorry Pete you need to read back through the thread. It was one of your Remainer friends FF43 who - in all seriousness - referred to the UK as needing to be a vassal state to the EU. Max is just replying to his moronic comment.
Thompson and Gator I like what you are both saying. Unfortunately the times article contradicts what you are saying. It claims population centres are the issue, this is what it says about London - has the fewest vaccination centres per person, eight per 1 million people.
The main problems will be getting people there safely (parking?) and having sufficient space to get them through and have their 15 minute sit down whilst maintaining social distancing. I suspect that although there may be fewer sites in urban areas, they will be bigger. Stadia and other sports venues seem to feature quite frequently. I very much doubt the rate limit will be the number of people available to do the injections but rather how many people you can get in the venue safely.
There are new centres being created quite rapidly in all sorts of locations. I'm not convinced there is a final list available yet. I'm involved with getting them up and running in a roundabout way, so I do get to see where a fair number of them are.
To be fair to the NYT, the published government guidance (which they linked to, and I quoted this morning), was deeply ambiguous on this point. It certainly didn’t refer to “extremely rare occasions”, and talked about avoiding wasted appointments.
But I’m glad they’ve cleared this up, even if they seem to be blaming newspapers for confusion they themselves created.
Coronavirus: BMJ urges NYT to correct vaccine 'mixing' article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55519042 .... Dr Mary Ramsay, Public Health England's head of immunisations, said: "We do not recommend mixing the Covid-19 vaccines - if your first dose is the Pfizer vaccine you should not be given the AstraZeneca vaccine for your second dose and vice versa." Dr Ramsay added that on the "extremely rare occasions" where the same vaccine is unavailable or it is unknown which jab the patient received, it is "better to give a second dose of another vaccine than not at all"....
This is what the Green Book (Chapter 14a) actually says.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948757/Greenbook_chapter_14a_v4.pdf ... If the course is interrupted or delayed, it should be resumed using the same vaccine but the first dose should not be repeated. There is no evidence on the interchangeability of the COVID-19 vaccines although studies are underway. Therefore, every effort should be made to determine which vaccine the individual received and to complete with the same vaccine. For individuals who started the schedule and who attend for vaccination at a site where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule. This option is preferred if the individual is likely to be at immediate high risk or is considered unlikely to attend again. In these circumstances, as both the vaccines are based on the spike protein, it is likely the second dose will help to boost the response to the first dose. For this reason, until additional information becomes available, further doses would not then be required...
Thompson and Gator I like what you are both saying. Unfortunately the times article contradicts what you are saying. It claims population centres are the issue, this is what it says about London - has the fewest vaccination centres per person, eight per 1 million people.
The main problems will be getting people there safely (parking?) and having sufficient space to get them through and have their 15 minute sit down whilst maintaining social distancing. I suspect that although there may be fewer sites in urban areas, they will be bigger. Stadia and other sports venues seem to feature quite frequently. I very much doubt the rate limit will be the number of people available to do the injections but rather how many people you can get in the venue safely.
There are new centres being created quite rapidly in all sorts of locations. I'm not convinced there is a final list available yet. I'm involved with getting them up and running in a roundabout way, so I do get to see where a fair number of them are.
Racecourses and sporting stadia sound ideal for what you suggest, indoor space and facilities, parking, etc.
Watching that 'Death to 2020' Netflix special, is it just me or is Hugh Grant a much, much better actor than he was 20 years ago, even as he is more annoying as a person?
Yes, I think he has become a much better actor since escaping floppy haired leading man roles.
One of the best things about him is that he really doesn’t give a fuck about how he looks. That and the remainery, Tory-enraging, incipient wokeness of course.
Funny how the Tories have gone back to the pre Cameron days. All that effort by him and his side-kick Steve Hilton-now himself a right-wing nutter-to show they had changed. Seems like a long time ago.
Very off topic.
The trouble is Roger, the voters want a nasty party now. All that stuff that Mrs May pinpointed as puting the voters off, now turns them out in their droves. It'll be hangin' and floggin' for the next election.
P.S. I am not sure how we arrived here via Hugh Grant.
One of the problems is that May identified these issues and then once she was in power (mostly as Home Secretary) was one of the worst for actually acting like a lunatic right wing authoritarian. Windrush may have exploded on Amber Rudd's watch but it had actually been a policy put in place and enacted when May was Home Secretary. Same for those disgusting vans telling immigrants to go home.
To be fair to the NYT, the published government guidance (which they linked to, and I quoted this morning), was deeply ambiguous on this point. It certainly didn’t refer to “extremely rare occasions”, and talked about avoiding wasted appointments.
But I’m glad they’ve cleared this up, even if they seem to be blaming newspapers for confusion they themselves created.
Coronavirus: BMJ urges NYT to correct vaccine 'mixing' article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55519042 .... Dr Mary Ramsay, Public Health England's head of immunisations, said: "We do not recommend mixing the Covid-19 vaccines - if your first dose is the Pfizer vaccine you should not be given the AstraZeneca vaccine for your second dose and vice versa." Dr Ramsay added that on the "extremely rare occasions" where the same vaccine is unavailable or it is unknown which jab the patient received, it is "better to give a second dose of another vaccine than not at all"....
This is what the Green Book (Chapter 14a) actually says.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948757/Greenbook_chapter_14a_v4.pdf ... If the course is interrupted or delayed, it should be resumed using the same vaccine but the first dose should not be repeated. There is no evidence on the interchangeability of the COVID-19 vaccines although studies are underway. Therefore, every effort should be made to determine which vaccine the individual received and to complete with the same vaccine. For individuals who started the schedule and who attend for vaccination at a site where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule. This option is preferred if the individual is likely to be at immediate high risk or is considered unlikely to attend again. In these circumstances, as both the vaccines are based on the spike protein, it is likely the second dose will help to boost the response to the first dose. For this reason, until additional information becomes available, further doses would not then be required...
It was clear in the document that mixing the doses was not recommended, it was just detailing what can be done in edge cases. Of course the NYTimes in their Britain-hating crusade jumped immediately to the wrong conclusion.
She needs clarity on her second vaccine because she :
"rang a friend who had also had her first vaccine, and we began to plan for a dinner together at the end of January. I let my mind conjure visions of a restaurant table, a tempting menu, a glass of wine. "
I find it really depressing that there is an even an argument over this. Young people, like Ms Cyclefree, have made so many, many sacrifices for the old.
We now ask the old to make a small sacrifice (they are at the head of the vaccine queue anyhow). It is explained to them that many more people can be saved with the new policy (and it is not difficult to understand the argument).
Yet, we get these whiney old people who have to get out urgently to a restaurant meal, a tempting menu & a glass of wine or they have to go on their wanky skiing trip in January and .... so they must have their second jab.
There is zero sympathy from me.
It is time for old people to acknowledge the enormous sacrifices made by younger people.
It probably isn’t, but that time will surely come. On taxation. And on climate change,
Comments
Our interests are not located in our own neighbourhood.
When it comes to the things that matter on the global stage - finance, trade, the military, espionage etc - the majority of our attention is and always has been global.
Our own neighbourhood is peaceful and settled. We have no "hard power" to exert or that we need to exert in our own continent. We aren't fighting the French, we don't primarily need to spy on the Germans, the Irish aren't our enemies.
Our Five Eyes alliance, our military deployments, our financial transactions and the majority of our trade are all global. That is where our hard power is deployed. That is where it needs to be deloyed.
There is actually pretty strong evidence of a First Term incumbency boost for new MPs.Stretching back to 1959, quite a few Tory gains from that year were held in 1964, and two - Briereley Hill and Lowestoft - stayed Tory even in 1966. Similarly Labour held on to several 1966 gains in 1970 - Plymouth Sutton and Brentford & Chiswick being examples. Rugby was a surprise Tory hold in 1964 - and a surprise Labour hold in 1970!
How do you separate such holds from the drift of the constituency itself in a particular political direction? When we see a replacement from the same party, often the trend continues.
How much difference is there between swings in such seats as when incumbents stand again?
The effect tends to be most apparent when a seat changes hands at a by election. Almost invariably the successful candidate obtains a significantly bigger swing for his/her party at the following General Election than would have been likely in the absence of a by election. By elections such as Orpington in 1962, Middlesborough West 1962, Roxburgh Selkirk & Peebles 1965 , Walthamstow West 1967 , Bromsgrove 1971, Berwick upon Tweed 1973,Ashfield 1977 provide clear examples of this.
More recently in my own seat of Norwich North the very popular Old Labour MP Ian Gibson felt obliged to resign when implicated in the Expenses scandal in mid-2009. At the subsequent by election , Chloe Smith achieved a 17.5% swing to take the seat for the Tories.Despite adverse boundary changes, she held the seat comfortably in 2010 on a 10% swing from 2005 - twice the national average for that election.The Tories benefiited from both the loss of Ian Gibson's personal vote and such a vote beginning to accumulate for the new MP.
I got interested in this while working for an oil company. Ended up talking with some fascinating people. Including an ancient Norwegian tanker captain (retired, but would come in for consultancy), who as a boy, had crewed tankers round the North Cape. In WWII....
It's easier and faster to build in modules and weld together. Has been, since Kaiser was a ship builder, not a monarch.
Sometimes the modules are made in different countries - there are some startling transport options out there.
Tory votes do seem to be optimally distributed at present. Makes Labour's task extra difficult.
You seem to be suggesting we should be everywhere at once, but that’s not a strategy.
Nobody is saying what caused the PoW leak but previous incidents of this type have been caused by the new 'lean' crewing practices and the shortage of clankies in the RN. HMS Endurance would have sank in the South Atlantic in 2006 if she weren't rescued by the Chilean Navy for this reason; seawater leak caused by lack of engineering expertise. Also half the ships complement were alcoholics who would only wear flip-flops so that can't have helped.
Of course that's an extreme example but you get the point.
Of course you are correct that there will be regional variations, because the age distribution is not identical within each postcode.
I believe statistically this is true which bodes well for the Conservatives in 2024. However, I suspect the aftermath of the pandemic and whether we all feel cheered or downcast over "deal done" Brexit plays out nationally. How all this works out and for whom is debatable.
Johnson is a unique politician. However incompetent, capricious and lazy he appears, the punters love him. So will he and the Conservatives take the blame for the economic chaos, or the plaudits for ending the pandemic?
My own view is, any other political figure would be crucified on the back of all the unemployment, poverty and financial ruin that is heading our way. However, any other political figure would end their political career, caught in mid air on a zip wire. Therefore I am convinced the next election hinges on the national picture and the fortunes or otherwise of the incumbent leader and their party rather than constituency MPs
I have no doubt he strikes a chord with ESN voters - ie Educationally Sub Normal.
So, it is easy to write a computer script to work through all the possibilities
The computer passes its radicalisation prevention exam, and you are then fully accredited to start jabbing.
As for being everwhere at once, with our friends and allies, it absolutely is a strategy.
The five eyes alliance spans around the globe which is where our interests lie. The entire planet can be accessed in seconds via communication and hours via flights.
The idea we can pull up the borders of our local continuent and act like a turtle retreating into its shell and hoping the rest of the world ignores us is just a puerile idea that doesn't fit for the 21st century.
It is why my College isn't too bothered by MCQs leaking after exams.
Hancock and Boris boasting jab stats whilst the specific is most of the jabs was the lower tear places.
And if Elon Musk gets his way, passenger flight will be 30 minutes. From everywhere. To everywhere.
{over the tannoy}"...To the everlasting glory of the Infantry...."{/over the tannoy}
Doesn’t NHS post code lottery mean good news for posh areas crap news for poor areas?
1. Mutant covid is highly contagious - but so far appears no more deadly (and maybe less so?) than the earlier version. It threatens to overwhelm the NHS because of its contagiousness but also moves us nearer and quicker to herd immunity, secondary to infection.
2. 1 million UK people have had 1st covid jabs and the next few months should see that number increase hugely moving us quicker and nearer to herd immunity, secondary to vaccination.
1+2 = herd immunity occurs sooner than currently projected?
Poor inner cities are easy to set up for a mass vaccination setup, while also being the highest risk; rich rural areas are harder to set up for mass vaccinations, while also being the lowest risk.
Posh rural areas are the last places to get set up for a va
It's therefore counter-productive to vaccinate everyone within an age category in London, for example, and then stopping to wait for the rest of the country to catch up. It would make much sense to leverage the efficiency of larger urban centres to vaccinate as many people as possible, which will ultimately benefit everyone, even if that means that some areas of the country are vaccinated much quicker than others.
(Or to put it another way, far far more people have problems with overactive immune systems than underactive ones.)
It’s not being distributed primarily through infrastructure of GP surgeries, so happening pricesly the other way round than you presumed?
Where are large hospitals: cities or rural villages? 🤦🏻♂️
Until they say otherwise (which they could do overnight if they wished), it’s illegal to do otherwise.
We have a million vaccinated in this country by the time the French have around a thousand vaccinated. We need to get on to 5 million, 10 million and so on and so forth as fast as humanly possible.
Ideally catch all the right people ASAP, but better to just do more than to slow down and do it slowly for everyone but evenly.
The trouble is Roger, the voters want a nasty party now. All that stuff that Mrs May pinpointed as puting the voters off, now turns them out in their droves. It'll be hangin' and floggin' for the next election.
P.S. I am not sure how we arrived here via Hugh Grant.
Nevertheless, the key thing will be not to "unlock" areas with a high number of vaccinations whilst leaving other areas to languish with a lower number of vaccinations and continued restrictions. In my opinion, the country should maintain Tier 3/Tier 4 until it is safe to relax everywhere to avoid grievances. It will also provide an incentive to not "forget" areas.
Of course it’s true that if you’re seriously malnourished, or very unhealthy, then your immune system is likely to function less well, but that doesn’t seem to be what they’re talking about,
There is the will to do it and there are enough people - current, returning (or trying to) or training (or planning to) - that can and will implement it.
I like what you are both saying.
Unfortunately the times article contradicts what you are saying. It claims population centres are the issue, this is what it says about London - has the fewest vaccination centres per person, eight per 1 million people.
You won!
It seems to me that what you are alluding to is that although you "won" you didn't "win" big enough.
The fight for "sovereignty" continues.
It certainly didn’t refer to “extremely rare occasions”, and talked about avoiding wasted appointments.
But I’m glad they’ve cleared this up, even if they seem to be blaming newspapers for confusion they themselves created.
Coronavirus: BMJ urges NYT to correct vaccine 'mixing' article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55519042
.... Dr Mary Ramsay, Public Health England's head of immunisations, said: "We do not recommend mixing the Covid-19 vaccines - if your first dose is the Pfizer vaccine you should not be given the AstraZeneca vaccine for your second dose and vice versa."
Dr Ramsay added that on the "extremely rare occasions" where the same vaccine is unavailable or it is unknown which jab the patient received, it is "better to give a second dose of another vaccine than not at all"....
There are new centres being created quite rapidly in all sorts of locations. I'm not convinced there is a final list available yet. I'm involved with getting them up and running in a roundabout way, so I do get to see where a fair number of them are.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948757/Greenbook_chapter_14a_v4.pdf
... If the course is interrupted or delayed, it should be resumed using the same vaccine but the first dose should not be repeated. There is no evidence on the interchangeability of the COVID-19 vaccines although studies are underway. Therefore, every effort should be made to determine which vaccine the individual received and to complete with the same vaccine. For individuals who started the schedule and who attend for vaccination at a site where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule. This option is preferred if the individual is likely to be at immediate high risk or is considered unlikely to attend again. In these circumstances, as both the vaccines are based on the spike protein, it is likely the second dose will help to boost the response to the first dose. For this reason, until additional information becomes available, further doses would not then be required...