Really don't understand why it drops so much. I thought us younger people (I still count, I'm in the 25-34 range technically) beleived in science.
Well, we have spent the entire pandemic talking about how this is an illness that's most dangerous for the older people, so I expect a large element is merely down to what people think they need to be safe as opposed to general anti-vaccination skepticism in younger cohorts.
Really don't understand why it drops so much. I thought us younger people (I still count, I'm in the 25-34 range technically) beleived in science.
Well, we have spent the entire pandemic talking about how this is an illness that's most dangerous for the older people, so I expect a large element is merely down to what people think they need to be safe as opposed to general anti-vaccination skepticism in younger cohorts.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but I am genuinely unable to guess the reason, since even if you don't think you'll need it to be safe, why turn it down if offered?
How else to explain a decision to open schools this morning and then by 8pm announce they were closing.
Why did Johnson wait on Sunday?
Alert Level 5 by the Joint Biosecurity Centre was today.
Not last week, today.
The numbers have been clear for 2-3 weeks.
The numbers have been changing but either way the Alert Level was put into 5 today, it is a complete and utter lie to say nothing has changed today.
This is from SAGE on 22 December:
"It is highly unlikely that measures with stringency and adherence in line with the measures in England in November (i.e. with schools open) would be sufficient to maintain R below 1 in the presence of the new variant. R would be lower with schools closed, with closure of secondary schools likely to have a greater effect than closure of primary schools. It remains difficult to distinguish where transmission between children takes place, and it is important to consider contacts made outside of schools.
It is not known whether measures with similar stringency and adherence as Spring, with both primary and secondary schools closed, would be sufficient to bring R below 1 in the presence of the new variant. The introduction of Tier 4 measures in England combined with the school holidays will be informative of the strength of measures required to control the new variant but analysis of this will not be possible until mid-January."
Yet we had large parts of the country in tier 3 and put our head in the sands on closing schools.
"The introduction of Tier 4 measures in England combined with the school holidays will be informative of the strength of measures required to control the new variant but analysis of this will not be possible until mid-January."
Yes - that was done. SAGE advice was followed. Tier 4 measures were introduced combined with the school holidays.
So the Government did exactly what SAGE advised as per your quotation.
No. Given it was known on 22 December:
- it is highly unlikely a lockdown stricter than tier 4 with schools open gets R below 1 - infection rates were higher than the start of November lockdown - they were going to rise even further because of Xmas
The only responsible option was to announce schools closed and give teachers, students and parents time to prepare.
If that was the only option then why did SAGE write:
"The introduction of Tier 4 measures in England combined with the school holidays will be informative of the strength of measures required to control the new variant but analysis of this will not be possible until mid-January."
Seems to me that SAGE were writing that Tier 4 should be introduced and combined with the school holidays then we can see by mid-January. There would be no reason to mention school holidays if they were actually recommending a school closure instead.
How else to explain a decision to open schools this morning and then by 8pm announce they were closing.
Why did Johnson wait on Sunday?
Alert Level 5 by the Joint Biosecurity Centre was today.
Not last week, today.
The numbers have been clear for 2-3 weeks.
The numbers have been changing but either way the Alert Level was put into 5 today, it is a complete and utter lie to say nothing has changed today.
This is from SAGE on 22 December:
"It is highly unlikely that measures with stringency and adherence in line with the measures in England in November (i.e. with schools open) would be sufficient to maintain R below 1 in the presence of the new variant. R would be lower with schools closed, with closure of secondary schools likely to have a greater effect than closure of primary schools. It remains difficult to distinguish where transmission between children takes place, and it is important to consider contacts made outside of schools.
It is not known whether measures with similar stringency and adherence as Spring, with both primary and secondary schools closed, would be sufficient to bring R below 1 in the presence of the new variant. The introduction of Tier 4 measures in England combined with the school holidays will be informative of the strength of measures required to control the new variant but analysis of this will not be possible until mid-January."
Yet we had large parts of the country in tier 3 and put our head in the sands on closing schools.
"As European leaders struggle to address the slow pace of the EU’s Covid-19 vaccination campaign, the French government in particular is coming under attack for its failures to manage the country’s high levels of vaccine hesitancy.
Just four in ten French people say they intend to receive a coronavirus vaccine, the lowest figure of 15 countries surveyed by Ipsos last week. By contrast, 78 per cent of Brazilians, 77 per cent of Brits, and 60 per cent of Japanese say they will get immunised. French TV reported on one care home where just 70 of 250 residents had given their consent. One resident said: “We don’t know what’s in their vaccine.”"
Like people actually believe something Johnson promises or sets as a target.
Shall we have a sweep on here for the actual number by Feb 14th?
I expect we'll be doing <2 million this week and next couple of weeks, with lots of media hysteria, but >2 million by the end of the month and closer to 3 million by middle of February.
2 million should be a staging post not a target. The more the better.
Oh god. The media are solely going to be focusing on the number, aren't they. Without any regard as to whether they are being used effectively. Testing all over again.
Not necessarily a bad thing in the circumstances actually.
Better to set a target of 14 million by 14 February, than 2 million per week by then; it means any let up early on is pressured to be caught up later on - and increasing capacity and delivery over and above 2 million per week is so much the better.
In contrast the French have set a target of 1 million by 31 January.
Note the wriggle room in the wording of our target - which is that people will have been offered the vaccine by mid February, not necessarily actually had it. If the programme is running late they can claim a technical achievement simply by offering slots days or weeks in advance.
I would expect a 60-70% uptake, so 14 million offers is probably 9 million or so given.
That uptake seems low enough to worry about reaching herd immunity at all given the unrestricted R is well above 3. I find it difficult to believe though given all we've gone through. 10% of conspiracy nuts, maybe, but >30%?
Just looking at immunisation rates for other diseases, and uptake of things like screening programmes.
Cervical cancer screening gets 71% uptake, breast cancer 72%, bowel cancer 64% all pretty much in the same ballpark as flu vaccination.
But none of them have been on the news and affecting everyone's lives for nearly a year.
Apart from antivaxers, between 10 and 20% of the population would be survivors, possibly more by March. That may not be an issue when calculating herd immunity, indeed a positive, but does affect the numbers taking up the offer.
Is there a book yet on what day Johnson will start briefing the press about a plan to "save Easter"?
Its certainly Bad News for purveyors of Valentines Day cards / gifts / sex arses. People will have to do sexy time only with people / unbroken wrists they live with.
How else to explain a decision to open schools this morning and then by 8pm announce they were closing.
Why did Johnson wait on Sunday?
Alert Level 5 by the Joint Biosecurity Centre was today.
Not last week, today.
The numbers have been clear for 2-3 weeks.
The numbers have been changing but either way the Alert Level was put into 5 today, it is a complete and utter lie to say nothing has changed today.
This is from SAGE on 22 December:
"It is highly unlikely that measures with stringency and adherence in line with the measures in England in November (i.e. with schools open) would be sufficient to maintain R below 1 in the presence of the new variant. R would be lower with schools closed, with closure of secondary schools likely to have a greater effect than closure of primary schools. It remains difficult to distinguish where transmission between children takes place, and it is important to consider contacts made outside of schools.
It is not known whether measures with similar stringency and adherence as Spring, with both primary and secondary schools closed, would be sufficient to bring R below 1 in the presence of the new variant. The introduction of Tier 4 measures in England combined with the school holidays will be informative of the strength of measures required to control the new variant but analysis of this will not be possible until mid-January."
Yet we had large parts of the country in tier 3 and put our head in the sands on closing schools.
"The introduction of Tier 4 measures in England combined with the school holidays will be informative of the strength of measures required to control the new variant but analysis of this will not be possible until mid-January."
Yes - that was done. SAGE advice was followed. Tier 4 measures were introduced combined with the school holidays.
So the Government did exactly what SAGE advised as per your quotation.
No. Given it was known on 22 December:
- it is highly unlikely a lockdown stricter than tier 4 with schools open gets R below 1 - infection rates were higher than the start of November lockdown - they were going to rise even further because of Xmas
The only responsible option was to announce schools closed and give teachers, students and parents time to prepare.
If that was the only option then why did SAGE write:
"The introduction of Tier 4 measures in England combined with the school holidays will be informative of the strength of measures required to control the new variant but analysis of this will not be possible until mid-January."
Seems to me that SAGE were writing that Tier 4 should be introduced and combined with the school holidays then we can see by mid-January. There would be no reason to mention school holidays if they were actually recommending a school closure instead.
It was not the only option, we could of course pretend it will all be hunky dory with sunny optimism, defend the policy the day before schools start, get 3m of the kids to meet up and share their germs, then close schools that evening.
That Politics For All Account is tweeting a report that there was a meeting at the DfE this afternoon, where civil servants were advised no school closures and no exam cancellations. If true, it looks like Williamson has been cut out of any crucial processes.
Is there a book yet on what day Johnson will start briefing the press about a plan to "save Easter"?
Its certainly Bad News for purveyors of Valentines Day cards / gifts / sex arses. People will have to do sexy time only with people / unbroken wrists they live with.
The bottom has fallen out of the sex arse business. Its best years are behind.
Like people actually believe something Johnson promises or sets as a target.
Shall we have a sweep on here for the actual number by Feb 14th?
I expect we'll be doing <2 million this week and next couple of weeks, with lots of media hysteria, but >2 million by the end of the month and closer to 3 million by middle of February.
2 million should be a staging post not a target. The more the better.
Oh god. The media are solely going to be focusing on the number, aren't they. Without any regard as to whether they are being used effectively. Testing all over again.
Not necessarily a bad thing in the circumstances actually.
Better to set a target of 14 million by 14 February, than 2 million per week by then; it means any let up early on is pressured to be caught up later on - and increasing capacity and delivery over and above 2 million per week is so much the better.
In contrast the French have set a target of 1 million by 31 January.
Note the wriggle room in the wording of our target - which is that people will have been offered the vaccine by mid February, not necessarily actually had it. If the programme is running late they can claim a technical achievement simply by offering slots days or weeks in advance.
I would expect a 60-70% uptake, so 14 million offers is probably 9 million or so given.
That uptake seems low enough to worry about reaching herd immunity at all given the unrestricted R is well above 3. I find it difficult to believe though given all we've gone through. 10% of conspiracy nuts, maybe, but >30%?
Just looking at immunisation rates for other diseases, and uptake of things like screening programmes.
Cervical cancer screening gets 71% uptake, breast cancer 72%, bowel cancer 64% all pretty much in the same ballpark as flu vaccination.
But none of them have been on the news and affecting everyone's lives for nearly a year.
Apart from antivaxers, between 10 and 20% of the population would be survivors, possibly more by March. That may not be an issue when calculating herd immunity, indeed a positive, but does affect the numbers taking up the offer.
Really don't understand why it drops so much. I thought us younger people (I still count, I'm in the 25-34 range technically) beleived in science.
You make it sound like you are only in that age range on a technicality? It is simply because the risk to younger people is far less.
As I said it was tongue in cheek, I'm just confused that even though the risk is less for younger people, why express a lack of a wish to be vaccinated. The question is about whether they would want to be vaccinated after all - I'd be less concerned than a 70 year old if I didn't get it, but I'd want it.
And it's technical as I'm 34 and some days, so just barely in it.
Is there a book yet on what day Johnson will start briefing the press about a plan to "save Easter"?
Its certainly Bad News for purveyors of Valentines Day cards / gifts / sex arses. People will have to do sexy time only with people / unbroken wrists they live with.
The bottom has fallen out of the sex arse business. Its best years are behind.
I here artisanal hand knapped flint sex toys are in high demand. Surely counts as an essential business?
Is there a book yet on what day Johnson will start briefing the press about a plan to "save Easter"?
Its certainly Bad News for purveyors of Valentines Day cards / gifts / sex arses. People will have to do sexy time only with people / unbroken wrists they live with.
The bottom has fallen out of the sex arse business. Its best years are behind.
Is that any reason to make it the butt of your jokes?
Is there a book yet on what day Johnson will start briefing the press about a plan to "save Easter"?
Its certainly Bad News for purveyors of Valentines Day cards / gifts / sex arses. People will have to do sexy time only with people / unbroken wrists they live with.
The bottom has fallen out of the sex arse business. Its best years are behind.
Really don't understand why it drops so much. I thought us younger people (I still count, I'm in the 25-34 range technically) beleived in science.
You make it sound like you are only in that age range on a technicality? It is simply because the risk to younger people is far less.
As I said it was tongue in cheek, I'm just confused that even though the risk is less for younger people, why express a lack of a wish to be vaccinated. The question is about whether they would want to be vaccinated after all - I'd be less concerned than a 70 year old if I didn't get it, but I'd want it.
And it's technical as I'm 34 and some days, so just barely in it.
It is because there is a slight, ever-so-tiny, risk in getting vaccinated.
The best policy is indeed for almost everyone else to get vaccinated .... bar you.
Because you then benefit from the herd immunity so created without running the tiny risk that comes from the vaccine.
Really don't understand why it drops so much. I thought us younger people (I still count, I'm in the 25-34 range technically) beleived in science.
You make it sound like you are only in that age range on a technicality? It is simply because the risk to younger people is far less.
As I said it was tongue in cheek, I'm just confused that even though the risk is less for younger people, why express a lack of a wish to be vaccinated. The question is about whether they would want to be vaccinated after all - I'd be less concerned than a 70 year old if I didn't get it, but I'd want it.
And it's technical as I'm 34 and some days, so just barely in it.
On that data they aren't saying they wouldn't be vaccinated, just a smaller proportion are saying it is highly likely they would get vaccinated (on the 1-10 score range of likeliness).
It doesn't seem all that odd that younger people, who know they are going to be well at the bottom of the pile for it any way, are not feeling quite the same level of urgency about getting it.
Background: The four of Spahn and his colleagues had tried to get enough vaccine for all Europeans, but Merkel wanted to put the vaccine procurement in the hands of the EU as a grand gesture.
Result: The EU failed in a devastating way to secure enough vaccine for all Europeans in time.
According to BILD information, the four ministers already had massive doubts in June 2020 that the EU would be able to procure enough vaccine in time, but were urged by their respective heads of government - in Germany by Chancellor Angela Merkel - to initiate the procedure Ursula von der Leyen to transfer.
Striking: Contrary to what the EU, Chancellery and Spahn are currently claiming, the letter is nowhere about negotiating good prices for the vaccine or even averting “vaccine nationalism”. When the project was handed over to the EU, these considerations - contrary to what is currently shown - apparently played no role.
All four ministers personally signed the letter. With that, the vaccine disaster took its course ...
Really don't understand why it drops so much. I thought us younger people (I still count, I'm in the 25-34 range technically) beleived in science.
You make it sound like you are only in that age range on a technicality? It is simply because the risk to younger people is far less.
As I said it was tongue in cheek, I'm just confused that even though the risk is less for younger people, why express a lack of a wish to be vaccinated. The question is about whether they would want to be vaccinated after all - I'd be less concerned than a 70 year old if I didn't get it, but I'd want it.
And it's technical as I'm 34 and some days, so just barely in it.
On that data they aren't saying they wouldn't be vaccinated, just a smaller proportion are saying it is highly likely they would get vaccinated (on the 1-10 score range of likeliness).
It doesn't seem all that odd that younger people, who know they are going to be well at the bottom of the pile for it any way, are not feeling quite the same level of urgency about getting it.
But the question says nothing about urgency, just how likely they would want to be vaccinated, if at all.
I don't see how a recognition that someone is lower risk, and that they will not be in line to get one for quite some time, impacts on the question at all.
The answer isn't that they are all anti-vaxxers, but the proffered explanations don't seem particularly satisfactory either.
Guardian: Since before Christmas, the government has trailed along haplessly in the wake of events, as if constantly surprised by them. The chaos over this week’s return to schools carried eerie echoes of the early spring. Then, as now, schools simply began to close their gates. Workplaces emptied, as the public grasped, more quickly than the government, what had to be done. This time round, Mr Johnson’s scientific advisers warned on 22 December that the exponential spread of infections meant that schools should remain closed and a national lockdown considered. The best form of crisis management is to anticipate and pre-empt, even if that means making unpopular decisions. But in Downing Street there is a persistent refusal to confront and act on the worst-case scenario before the worst has actually happened.
The government’s capacity to endlessly repeat the same mistakes hardly inspires confidence. But for a time-limited period, as the population is vaccinated, it is right to batten down the hatches. Tough as the coming weeks will be, this is not the open-ended nightmare that began to unfold last February and March. It is just a pity that the government did not recognise that changed context and act sooner.
My God, that Tweeter's a simpleton. How many countries have beaten the virus by now, exactly?
I can think of a couple of English speaking islands.
In the middle of nowhere with a population density only twice that of the Scottish Highlands?
Uh huh.
Well, while Guernsey certainly wouldn't claim to have "beaten" the virus, but with 8 current cases all identified on arrival, can reasonably be described as having it under control, and with a population density getting on for four times England's and fifteen times Scotlands, let alone the Scottish Highlands, may provide food for thought.
Really don't understand why it drops so much. I thought us younger people (I still count, I'm in the 25-34 range technically) beleived in science.
You make it sound like you are only in that age range on a technicality? It is simply because the risk to younger people is far less.
As I said it was tongue in cheek, I'm just confused that even though the risk is less for younger people, why express a lack of a wish to be vaccinated. The question is about whether they would want to be vaccinated after all - I'd be less concerned than a 70 year old if I didn't get it, but I'd want it.
And it's technical as I'm 34 and some days, so just barely in it.
On that data they aren't saying they wouldn't be vaccinated, just a smaller proportion are saying it is highly likely they would get vaccinated (on the 1-10 score range of likeliness).
It doesn't seem all that odd that younger people, who know they are going to be well at the bottom of the pile for it any way, are not feeling quite the same level of urgency about getting it.
But the question says nothing about urgency, just how likely they would want to be vaccinated, if at all.
I don't see how a recognition that someone is lower risk, and that they will not be in line to get one for quite some time, impacts on the question at all.
The answer isn't that they are all anti-vaxxers, but the proffered explanations don't seem particularly satisfactory either.
Younger people (who would be less at risk by definition through their age) think it's less important to get vaccinated seems a reasonable result to expect. The age drop off here doesn't surprise me one bit. Don't see there's much more to it than that?
Really don't understand why it drops so much. I thought us younger people (I still count, I'm in the 25-34 range technically) beleived in science.
You make it sound like you are only in that age range on a technicality? It is simply because the risk to younger people is far less.
As I said it was tongue in cheek, I'm just confused that even though the risk is less for younger people, why express a lack of a wish to be vaccinated. The question is about whether they would want to be vaccinated after all - I'd be less concerned than a 70 year old if I didn't get it, but I'd want it.
And it's technical as I'm 34 and some days, so just barely in it.
On that data they aren't saying they wouldn't be vaccinated, just a smaller proportion are saying it is highly likely they would get vaccinated (on the 1-10 score range of likeliness).
It doesn't seem all that odd that younger people, who know they are going to be well at the bottom of the pile for it any way, are not feeling quite the same level of urgency about getting it.
But the question says nothing about urgency, just how likely they would want to be vaccinated, if at all.
I don't see how a recognition that someone is lower risk, and that they will not be in line to get one for quite some time, impacts on the question at all.
The answer isn't that they are all anti-vaxxers, but the proffered explanations don't seem particularly satisfactory either.
Younger people (who would be less at risk by definition through their age) think it's less important to get vaccinated seems a reasonable result to expect. The age drop off here doesn't surprise me one bit. Don't see there's much more to it than that?
But the question doesn't say anything about how important it is, just whether they would get one, so that still doesn't answer it. If the question did ask that, I would understand the drop off.
Is there a book yet on what day Johnson will start briefing the press about a plan to "save Easter"?
Its certainly Bad News for purveyors of Valentines Day cards / gifts / sex arses. People will have to do sexy time only with people / unbroken wrists they live with.
The bottom has fallen out of the sex arse business. Its best years are behind.
Really don't understand why it drops so much. I thought us younger people (I still count, I'm in the 25-34 range technically) beleived in science.
You can blame ‘clean’ eating and everything that follows for that. One of my tunes has been explaining how the current student cohort now don’t want anything unnatural in their bodies, including all medicines. And this is a pharmacy student...
Really don't understand why it drops so much. I thought us younger people (I still count, I'm in the 25-34 range technically) beleived in science.
You can blame ‘clean’ eating and everything that follows for that. One of my tunes has been explaining how the current student cohort now don’t want anything unnatural in their bodies, including all medicines. And this is a pharmacy student...
They are disgustingly healthy - don't drink, don't do drugs, don't smoke. It's like they want us to look bad!
"As European leaders struggle to address the slow pace of the EU’s Covid-19 vaccination campaign, the French government in particular is coming under attack for its failures to manage the country’s high levels of vaccine hesitancy.
Just four in ten French people say they intend to receive a coronavirus vaccine, the lowest figure of 15 countries surveyed by Ipsos last week. By contrast, 78 per cent of Brazilians, 77 per cent of Brits, and 60 per cent of Japanese say they will get immunised. French TV reported on one care home where just 70 of 250 residents had given their consent. One resident said: “We don’t know what’s in their vaccine.”"
One very important topic was missing from the PM's speech: a support package for business.
Nothing. Not even a hint? Sunak has vanished. He appears to have washed his hands of the economy. Even the pitiful grant promised last November has yet to be paid.
This is another March-style lockdown. So why aren't we getting another March-style support package?
I know you must all be bored of hearing about my Daughter. But hers was the only venue still open until closure last week. Her place was as full as it could be. Some others round here are never reopening. Viable businesses are being killed - not because of capitalism or because of a lack of demand (people are desperate to return when it becomes possible) but because of government indifference.
Realistically they have until Wednesday to announce something concrete - after all Johnson has only just made his mind up to act. I hope they will, but it would not surprise me massively if they don’t. Fingers crossed for you and the rest of the hospitality trade.
It's not just hospitality but retail and every other business closed and unable to trade.
When restrictions are lifted and people rush to the shops and cafes and pubs and restaurants to do all the things they've been unable to do, they're going to find many of them gone for good. This economic bounce back that people / the government are expecting: how's it going to happen with a collapse in tax revenues and increased welfare spending?
Comments
https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/1346096994218086402?s=20
https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/1346210826273902597?s=20
https://twitter.com/redfeathers/status/1346169281696964609?s=20
"The introduction of Tier 4 measures in England combined
with the school holidays will be informative of the strength of measures required to
control the new variant but analysis of this will not be possible until mid-January."
Seems to me that SAGE were writing that Tier 4 should be introduced and combined with the school holidays then we can see by mid-January. There would be no reason to mention school holidays if they were actually recommending a school closure instead.
Its ok, at the rate France is going, they only need a million or two for the end of 2021.
Just four in ten French people say they intend to receive a coronavirus vaccine, the lowest figure of 15 countries surveyed by Ipsos last week. By contrast, 78 per cent of Brazilians, 77 per cent of Brits, and 60 per cent of Japanese say they will get immunised. French TV reported on one care home where just 70 of 250 residents had given their consent. One resident said: “We don’t know what’s in their vaccine.”"
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2021/01/hesitancy-and-poor-planning-why-france-s-covid-19-vaccination-campaign-so-slow
And it's technical as I'm 34 and some days, so just barely in it.
https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/index.cgi?SID=Y3NvdXJjZT1jc2ZzZWFyY2gmcGFnZWFjdGlvbj12aWV3dmFjYnlqb2JsaXN0JnVzZXJzZWFyY2hjb250ZXh0PTExNzExODYzNSZzZWFyY2hfc2xpY2VfY3VycmVudD0xJm93bmVydHlwZT1mYWlyJmpvYmxpc3Rfdmlld192YWM9MTcwMDE3MCZvd25lcj01MDcwMDAwJnBhZ2VjbGFzcz1Kb2JzJnJlcXNpZz0xNjA5Nzk2NjE4LTY5OTkzZDNlYmFjZTRkYjJmY2E3YjI2MGI2OWJhMjk1NThhNTJmMzU=
Is this true that they have delayed even further?
Where did this come from?
The best policy is indeed for almost everyone else to get vaccinated .... bar you.
Because you then benefit from the herd immunity so created without running the tiny risk that comes from the vaccine.
Uh huh.
It doesn't seem all that odd that younger people, who know they are going to be well at the bottom of the pile for it any way, are not feeling quite the same level of urgency about getting it.
Perhaps she has already been promoted to official concubine
Background: The four of Spahn and his colleagues had tried to get enough vaccine for all Europeans, but Merkel wanted to put the vaccine procurement in the hands of the EU as a grand gesture.
Result: The EU failed in a devastating way to secure enough vaccine for all Europeans in time.
According to BILD information, the four ministers already had massive doubts in June 2020 that the EU would be able to procure enough vaccine in time, but were urged by their respective heads of government - in Germany by Chancellor Angela Merkel - to initiate the procedure Ursula von der Leyen to transfer.
Striking: Contrary to what the EU, Chancellery and Spahn are currently claiming, the letter is nowhere about negotiating good prices for the vaccine or even averting “vaccine nationalism”. When the project was handed over to the EU, these considerations - contrary to what is currently shown - apparently played no role.
All four ministers personally signed the letter. With that, the vaccine disaster took its course ...
https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/mit-diesem-spahn-brief-begann-das-impfstoff-desaster-bei-der-eu-74734176.bild.html
I don't see how a recognition that someone is lower risk, and that they will not be in line to get one for quite some time, impacts on the question at all.
The answer isn't that they are all anti-vaxxers, but the proffered explanations don't seem particularly satisfactory either.
The government’s capacity to endlessly repeat the same mistakes hardly inspires confidence. But for a time-limited period, as the population is vaccinated, it is right to batten down the hatches. Tough as the coming weeks will be, this is not the open-ended nightmare that began to unfold last February and March. It is just a pity that the government did not recognise that changed context and act sooner.
Given that this evening's update was Johnson's best so far (imo), I was wondering if she'd already had a lot of input.
When restrictions are lifted and people rush to the shops and cafes and pubs and restaurants to do all the things they've been unable to do, they're going to find many of them gone for good. This economic bounce back that people / the government are expecting: how's it going to happen with a collapse in tax revenues and increased welfare spending?