You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
Although it does also say that you should help children first before putting on your own. Whether you could count other countries as being like children is a debatable point.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.
That is a lovely way to see things but not the way the world works. The best model of government (the sort of government you'd want to live under, anyway) is that of a social contract which we as selfish actors (I'm afraid) enter into with the government. The deal is that they look out for their own population, not of the world in general. This isn't quite as greedy and Hobbesian an outlook as it sounds, because a lot of kinds of altruism actually pay for themselves and because there are strong arguments based on efficient resource allocation which say that net benefits are maximised if countries stick to what they know best; but when the chips are down a government is politically and morally obliged to save its own 40 year olds from a slight risk way before it turns its attention to anyone else's 80 year olds. If it thinks different it can try for election on that basis. Come to think about it Corbyn kinda did, with his overt contempt for the UK's Labour client vote poor at the expense of the Palestinians.
Normally the case in practice, yes, although I don't go along with the notion that it's either in theory or as a matter of realism the best model possible. Also do not dispute that "sorting ourselves first come what may" is probably a vote winner. Indeed I note that Labour are making such noises in opposition to Truss's more internationalist ones.
However, leaving aside the ethics, in this case there is self-interest in a collectivist approach to fighting the pandemic. Right now there isn't a choice to be made, since Covid is not under control here, but the time may well come when there is. And if so, imo our approach should not be one of no diversion of supply as long as there remains a single unwillingly unjabbed arm in Blighty.
AZN dangerous ineffective shit....but we will have that Russian one that nobody believes their ever changing results or the Chinese ones, one of which not peer reviewed and the other only 50% effective in latest trial.
Well, Husband in Royal Free having tests ....... 😨
Hopefully, he'll be sent home soon and will spend next few years moaning at me about having ruined his Sunday afternoon. But will take that if it means he's OK.
You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
You're the second poster to use the analogy, and I think it's apposite. We need to keep going until this country is no longer a Covid factory. That means using vaccination to eliminate the disease, not just take pressure off the death numbers.
I've never claimed to be original but I really didn't know about the previous usage. But yes. Right now we have a very high level of infection in our community and one of the worst death rates in the world. We need to stop this and we need to stop it right now. Anything other would be a serious dereliction of duty on the part of our government.
AZN dangerous shit....but we will have that Russian one that nobody believes their ever changing results or the Chinese ones, one of which not peer reviewed and the other only 50% effective in latest trial.
In this instance, it isn't a choice. I don't see how we can blame them for exploring other options. Provided they are satisfied by the safety, any amount of efficacy is good.
I presumed, in that tweet, that this extremely senior eurocrat was sensitively worrying about the lack of vaccinations in Africa.
But no. As far as I can see, he is actually exulting in the fact that the EU has done millions more jabs than Africa, thus proving that the EU is great.
They are fucking mad. What a repulsive organisation
AZN dangerous shit....but we will have that Russian one that nobody believes their ever changing results or the Chinese ones, one of which not peer reviewed and the other only 50% effective in latest trial.
In this instance, it isn't a choice. I don't see how we can blame them for exploring other options. Provided they are satisfied by the safety, any amount of efficacy is good.
If the German regulator doesn't think there is enough evidence for over 65s using AZN, it will be a whitweash if they find it with the Russian or the non-peer reviewed Chinese one.
And the other Chinese one at 50% is really borderline.
You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
Although it does also say that you should help children first before putting on your own. Whether you could count other countries as being like children is a debatable point.
Errr no it categorically does not.
You help yourself and then you can put one on your child.
Put one on your child and you pass out before you can put your own on - and nobody can look after your child.
Well, Husband in Royal Free having tests ....... 😨
Hopefully, he'll be sent home soon and will spend next few years moaning at me about having ruined his Sunday afternoon. But will take that if it means he's OK.
I presumed, in that tweet, that this extremely senior eurocrat was sensitively worrying about the lack of vaccinations in Africa.
But no. As far as I can see, he is actually exulting in the fact that the EU has done millions more jabs than Africa, thus proving that the EU is great.
They are fucking mad. What a repulsive organisation
I'd quite like to get a jab ta very much @kinabalu. Covid has wrecked one friend for a year (He seems to perhaps be recovering a bit now), and killed someone two years younger than me
I presumed, in that tweet, that this extremely senior eurocrat was sensitively worrying about the lack of vaccinations in Africa.
But no. As far as I can see, he is actually exulting in the fact that the EU has done millions more jabs than Africa, thus proving that the EU is great.
They are fucking mad. What a repulsive organisation
Remember, it's wrong to treat Covid like a league table - unttil a point needs to be made.
AZN dangerous shit....but we will have that Russian one that nobody believes their ever changing results or the Chinese ones, one of which not peer reviewed and the other only 50% effective in latest trial.
In this instance, it isn't a choice. I don't see how we can blame them for exploring other options. Provided they are satisfied by the safety, any amount of efficacy is good.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Excellent.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
Why stop there? We want the world to be vaccinated by UK manufactured vaccines developed in this country. And I can see few reasons now why this is not going to happen.
Yes, Ghana after Brazil etc etc.
France and Germany go to the back of the queue as Obama once said right?
Putting a rhetorical 'right?' at the end of your posts which you invariably do makes you sound like a thug.
I would benefit from an explanatory note on that conclusion.
It's challenging and aggressive. Don't you think so?
It's challenging and aggressive in a weedy, wouldn't say boo to a goose in the real world way imo. Gateway drug to telling people to fuck off (only on the internet naturlich) I suspect.
It makes you flinch when you see it written down. Spoken it reminds me of Diane Abbott rolling her eyes trying to be withering.
Note how it's framed by German TV: "When will Europe catch up with Great Britain and the USA?"
My German is a bit rusty, but I think she said that by stealing enough UK vaccines they'll be able to innoculate the upper echelons of the commission in the coming months.
I'd quite like to get a jab ta very much @kinabalu. Covid has wrecked one friend for a year (He seems to perhaps be recovering a bit now), and killed someone two years younger than me
100%. I don't mind waiting my turn for the vaccine.
To be told my turn should be given away completely once we're done vaccinating those older then I simply go without - its repulsive.
Can we please focus on what Martin Selmayr has just tweeted. Indescribable
There was a discussion a few threads back on the appropriateness of Matt Hancock comparing the UK to the EU vaccine program, claiming that somehow that tweet justified the EU's response. I'd like to know their opinion on this one!
I presumed, in that tweet, that this extremely senior eurocrat was sensitively worrying about the lack of vaccinations in Africa.
But no. As far as I can see, he is actually exulting in the fact that the EU has done millions more jabs than Africa, thus proving that the EU is great.
Given there has been pointing to the UK's death rate as a counter to its good vaccination roll out, presumably he has also compared the rates across Africa. The stats may be a bit more unreliable perhaps.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.
That is a lovely way to see things but not the way the world works. The best model of government (the sort of government you'd want to live under, anyway) is that of a social contract which we as selfish actors (I'm afraid) enter into with the government. The deal is that they look out for their own population, not of the world in general. This isn't quite as greedy and Hobbesian an outlook as it sounds, because a lot of kinds of altruism actually pay for themselves and because there are strong arguments based on efficient resource allocation which say that net benefits are maximised if countries stick to what they know best; but when the chips are down a government is politically and morally obliged to save its own 40 year olds from a slight risk way before it turns its attention to anyone else's 80 year olds. If it thinks different it can try for election on that basis. Come to think about it Corbyn kinda did, with his overt contempt for the UK's Labour client vote poor at the expense of the Palestinians.
Normally the case in practice, yes, although I don't go along with the notion that it's either in theory or as a matter of realism the best model possible. Also do not dispute that "sorting ourselves first come what may" is probably a vote winner. Indeed I note that Labour are making such noises in opposition to Truss's more internationalist ones.
However, leaving aside the ethics, in this case there is self-interest in a collectivist approach to fighting the pandemic. Right now there isn't a choice to be made, since Covid is not under control here, but the time may well come when there is. And if so, imo our approach should not be one of no diversion of supply as long as there remains a single unwillingly unjabbed arm in Blighty.
Then why are you shouting at the uk that has done plenty already to assist the rest of the world instead of your pals in the eu that have done everything on the cheap and little to assist the rest of the world....why does your bile all get inflicted on this country for how little we have done even when we have done more than your internationalist comrades?
I presumed, in that tweet, that this extremely senior eurocrat was sensitively worrying about the lack of vaccinations in Africa.
But no. As far as I can see, he is actually exulting in the fact that the EU has done millions more jabs than Africa, thus proving that the EU is great.
They are fucking mad. What a repulsive organisation
Remember, it's wrong to treat Covid like a league table - unttil a point needs to be made.
If a British politician tweeted that, they'd probably be forced to resign tomorrow. They would certainly be obliged to make a grovelling apology and delete the tweet.
But he's a eurocrat, they just sail on and on.
It's like the last ten days have been scripted by Nigel Farage, and Bill Cash. On acid.
I'd quite like to get a jab ta very much @kinabalu. Covid has wrecked one friend for a year (He seems to perhaps be recovering a bit now), and killed someone two years younger than me
Hope you do, mate. Think you will. And I'd quite like to see the end of this dreadful global pandemic. Hope you're cool with that too.
Fine, Mark, fine. If you are not up for considering something to the great potential benefit of your party, what can I do but leave it. Happy to.
@MaxPB agrees with me though. Or at last gets it. He did an excellent post yesterday making a similar (ish) case.
Only up to an extent, I wouldn't be in favour of giving our spare vaccines to the EU without any commitments made for them to properly fund COVAX to the same level we have. I would also want them to hand over the money to the programme before we allow Pfizer and AZ to redirect our vaccines to the EU scheme.
Also, @Cyclefree, I saw your objection to the idea, I'll take this opportunity to explain why it would be in our favour to do this and why it isn't going to make any difference to how quickly our scheme will get to everyone under the age of 50.
Firstly, in April we are going to take delivery of Moderna and Novavax, these plug into the Pfizer and AZ supply chains directly with Moderna requiring a less extreme temperature for storage and transportations and a slightly longer shelf life meaning there won't be as much of an issue with wasted doses. It has the same or better efficacy. To take advantage of both Pfizer and Moderna jabs at the same time we'd need to expand our super-cold logistics chain, this is both time consuming and costly and by the time we get around to it the programme will be done anyway.
Next, the Novavax vaccine has got 89% overall efficacy and 100% efficacy against death, hospitalisation and severe symptoms. It has very high efficacy against Kent COVID and doesn't require a 12 week gap from first to second jab to reach this high level of protection as the AZ vaccine needs. Using Novavax instead of AZ will actually get us to the end of lockdown faster than using AZ, so as soon as we start receiving volume deliveries in April it needs to be prioritised over AZ for these two reasons (proven high efficacy against Kent COVID and a shorter delta between jabs).
Between Moderna (6 weeks to full efficacy) and Novavax (4 weeks to full efficacy) we should receive around 4-6m doses per week from April, there are ~30m people in phase 2 (everyone under 50) which means we can get through them and get everyone full two dose immunity by the end of June with this strategy. With AZ we'd need to wait for 12 weeks from first to second jab and then another three weeks to reach full efficacy, so if we give the first under 50s the jab in the first week of April it will be 15 weeks until they can live normally again, if we give them Novavax it's just 4 weeks and Moderna is 6 weeks.
It may seem odd to give away vaccine jabs and still be better off but that's the position we're in, by April we will literally be swimming in vaccines, more than we'll be able to reasonably use so keeping them in our fridges would be a mistake when we could use them to leverage the EU into funding COVAX or failing that, helping South Africa or Brazil get cases down.
I completely reject the WHO idea that we should stop doing jabs once everyone over 65 is done to then give away our supply, it would be completely unfair to everyone living in the UK. We're doing our part for COVAX and the world's poorest with money and actions, we've invest in production capacity in the UK to make 600m doses of various vaccines, last year we had precisely zero, we've gone from being a vaccine nobody to being a vaccine somebody and AIUI the government sees this as just the beginning and more capacity is being planned. We are doing our part to inoculate the world's poor, the WHO can go and take a long walk off a short pier if it thinks we should give away our current supplies to the EU because they failed to plan properly.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.
My apologies - you've adopted the morality of an extreme anti-nationalist. Although it's clearly not an inflexible morality, since it permits you to take your doses of the vaccine ahead of our putative elderly Greek in order to protect yourself, and instead to give away the doses belonging to other people to signal your virtue at no cost to yourself.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.
My apologies - you've adopted the morality of an extreme anti-nationalist. Although it's clearly not an inflexible morality, since it permits you to take your doses of the vaccine ahead of our putative elderly Greek in order to protect yourself, and instead to give away the doses belonging to other people to signal your virtue.
That looks like a parody - absurd holocaust parallels, link to David Icke, reference to nanochips, it's all about profit for Bill Gates, pushing of alternative treatments.
If it is real, then free speech is not an issue, people putting that out there will be killing people.
And how the heck did Piers Corbyn get to be a prominent figure of the absolute lunatics?
That looks like a parody - absurd holocaust parallels, link to David Icke, reference to nanochips, it's all about profit for Bill Gates, pushing of alternative treatments.
My god.
I knew Piers Corbyn was extreme - but is he channelling.... Macron now?
I presumed, in that tweet, that this extremely senior eurocrat was sensitively worrying about the lack of vaccinations in Africa.
But no. As far as I can see, he is actually exulting in the fact that the EU has done millions more jabs than Africa, thus proving that the EU is great.
They are fucking mad. What a repulsive organisation
Remember, it's wrong to treat Covid like a league table - unttil a point needs to be made.
If a British politician tweeted that, they'd probably be forced to resign tomorrow. They would certainly be obliged to make a grovelling apology and delete the tweet.
But he's a eurocrat, they just sail on and on.
It's like the last ten days have been scripted by Nigel Farage, and Bill Cash. On acid.
Nah, they just don't have the imagination to come up with this.
I vaguely recall patronising crap explaining to me and others about how the EU was an institution based on law and legal principles in front of which we could only grovel and ask for forgiveness. Ratner was a complete amateur at destroying a brand compared with the likes of UvdL and Selmayr.
Routine bowel screening seems to have ground to a halt for now. My husband should have received a kit in September. They used to arrive very promptly every two years.
Information on the internet says it was paused in March. But it restarted n August. I'm not sure if the new variant and its effects have changed that.
A relative of ours had a complete stem cell transplant over a year ago. She still receives visits to hospital and associated treatments. Some life (literally) goes on.
That looks like a parody - absurd holocaust parallels, link to David Icke, reference to nanochips, it's all about profit for Bill Gates, pushing of alternative treatments.
My god.
I knew Piers Corbyn was extreme - but is he channelling.... Macron now?
Who would have thought jeremy was the sensible one of the family?
I presumed, in that tweet, that this extremely senior eurocrat was sensitively worrying about the lack of vaccinations in Africa.
But no. As far as I can see, he is actually exulting in the fact that the EU has done millions more jabs than Africa, thus proving that the EU is great.
They are fucking mad. What a repulsive organisation
Remember, it's wrong to treat Covid like a league table - unttil a point needs to be made.
If a British politician tweeted that, they'd probably be forced to resign tomorrow. They would certainly be obliged to make a grovelling apology and delete the tweet.
But he's a eurocrat, they just sail on and on.
It's like the last ten days have been scripted by Nigel Farage, and Bill Cash. On acid.
Nah, they just don't have the imagination to come up with this.
I vaguely recall patronising crap explaining to me and others about how the EU was an institution based on law and legal principles in front of which we could only grovel and ask for forgiveness. Ratner was a complete amateur at destroying a brand compared with the likes of UdvL and Selmayr.
When the Cion marks World AIDS Day, is it to emphasise how much better the EU is at managing the disease than Africa? Would basically be the same statement....
That looks like a parody - absurd holocaust parallels, link to David Icke, reference to nanochips, it's all about profit for Bill Gates, pushing of alternative treatments.
My god.
I knew Piers Corbyn was extreme - but is he channelling.... Macron now?
Who would have thought jeremy was the sensible one of the family?
Corbyn really matters Anyone can see Corbyn really matters Corbyn really matters to me
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Excellent.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally for the country and domestically for the Conservatives.
That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has. I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreigners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Oh, this is so ridiculous. We don't currently have anywhere near enough supply to make a damned bit of difference to anyone else without - possibly even with - stopping our entire vaccination programme stone dead. Emphasis on dead. The numbers simply don't work - what on earth could the EU or African Union meaningfully do with even a few million doses if we gave them up, never mind the morality of the question?
In a few months' time, we will (hopefully) be most of the way through our vaccination, cases and deaths will (double hopefully) have slowed to a trickle, and we will have more doses that we know what to do with. At that point, sharing them out a bit becomes not only possible and meaningful, but obvious and straightforward. That is the way it's going to go, and that is the way it should be.
I wasn't talking about now or the very near term. So I don't disagree with a single word of your post apart from the first five.
I'm happy to withdraw those words, but now I really don't understand where your point of difference is from just about everyone else on here.
I'm anticipating the time when there will be a meaningful choice. I think with the uncertainties around rollouts and variants, and the sheer size of the global challenge, that time will likely come. If it doesn't, great.
I see. I don't think a time of meaningful choice will ever come, or, if it does, it will be a window of at most a few weeks.
If it does, then I disagree with you on the priorities.
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
I believe such kits are now sent out every two years to people of 55 plus - until 75.
They've been doing it in Scotland, now for 50-74, for about a dozen years (I forget exactly how long). Sent out every 2 years. I know such screenings can be counterintuitive in principle but the4y seem happy enough with this particular one.
It's news to me and I'm just 60. Mind you I have only just moved to Wales...
Would be worth looking it up and following it up if your 60th b'day came before you registered locally with a GP. The Scottish ones at least come out automatically from the central lab according to birthday. It was a somewhat startling 50th b'day present, the first time ...
I am intrigued. When was your second fiftieth birthday?
The first time I got the package in the post, not the first time I had the birthday! Sorry. I'm not HMtQ with two b'days and two cakes a year.
That looks like a parody - absurd holocaust parallels, link to David Icke, reference to nanochips, it's all about profit for Bill Gates, pushing of alternative treatments.
If it is real, then free speech is not an issue, people putting that out there will be killing people.
And how the heck did Piers Corbyn get to be a prominent figure of the absolute lunatics?
Among the lunatics, the most bat shit insane is the leader. That's how QAnon etc work.
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
I believe such kits are now sent out every two years to people of 55 plus - until 75.
They've been doing it in Scotland, now for 50-74, for about a dozen years (I forget exactly how long). Sent out every 2 years. I know such screenings can be counterintuitive in principle but the4y seem happy enough with this particular one.
It's news to me and I'm just 60. Mind you I have only just moved to Wales...
Would be worth looking it up and following it up if your 60th b'day came before you registered locally with a GP. The Scottish ones at least come out automatically from the central lab according to birthday. It was a somewhat startling 50th b'day present, the first time ...
I am intrigued. When was your second fiftieth birthday?
The first time I got the package in the post, not the first time I had the birthday! Sorry. I'm not HMtQ with two b'days and two cakes a year.
Ah that explains why I dont have birthdays she has stolen mine
Routine bowel screening seems to have ground to a halt for now. My husband should have received a kit in September. They used to arrive very promptly every two years.
Information on the internet says it was paused in March. But it restarted n August. I'm not sure if the new variant and its effects have changed that.
A relative of ours had a complete stem cell transplant over a year ago. She still receives visits to hospital and associated treatments. Some life (literally) goes on.
The Scots suspended the bowel cancer screening for some months too. Back in action - I got mine, slightly delayed, ion the end.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.
My apologies - you've adopted the morality of an extreme anti-nationalist. Although it's clearly not an inflexible morality, since it permits you to take your doses of the vaccine ahead of our putative elderly Greek in order to protect yourself, and instead to give away the doses belonging to other people to signal your virtue at no cost to yourself.
Because that's the moral thing to do.
That's back to "if you favour higher taxes why don't you donate to HMRC?"
That looks like a parody - absurd holocaust parallels, link to David Icke, reference to nanochips, it's all about profit for Bill Gates, pushing of alternative treatments.
My god.
I knew Piers Corbyn was extreme - but is he channelling.... Macron now?
Who would have thought jeremy was the sensible one of the family?
Is there not a brother with zero media profile, whose name is even difficult to trace online, and who just gets on with his life? Surely he got all the brains available for this generation of Corbyns.
That looks like a parody - absurd holocaust parallels, link to David Icke, reference to nanochips, it's all about profit for Bill Gates, pushing of alternative treatments.
If it is real, then free speech is not an issue, people putting that out there will be killing people.
And how the heck did Piers Corbyn get to be a prominent figure of the absolute lunatics?
Piers Corbyn has always been a prominent crank but in the old days he was a climate change sceptic, popular with some on the right because of his sunspot theories.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.
My apologies - you've adopted the morality of an extreme anti-nationalist. Although it's clearly not an inflexible morality, since it permits you to take your doses of the vaccine ahead of our putative elderly Greek in order to protect yourself, and instead to give away the doses belonging to other people to signal your virtue at no cost to yourself.
Because that's the moral thing to do.
That's back to "if you favour higher taxes why don't you donate to HMRC?"
Sterile and a dead end.
Thats only your opinion...you always go on about fair....is the tax you pay fair? If not donate till it gets to fair its not rocket science....my bet though is you think the tax you pay is fair and its everyone else that should pay more
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.
My apologies - you've adopted the morality of an extreme anti-nationalist. Although it's clearly not an inflexible morality, since it permits you to take your doses of the vaccine ahead of our putative elderly Greek in order to protect yourself, and instead to give away the doses belonging to other people to signal your virtue at no cost to yourself.
Because that's the moral thing to do.
That's back to "if you favour higher taxes why don't you donate to HMRC?"
Sterile and a dead end.
Have you gone insane? Do you genuinely believe that you have the right to be protected yourself but that other British citizens who also pay the taxes to fund the vaccines should be forced to go without for God knows how long while you send their doses abroad?
This can't be real. It wouldn't work as a parody of a Hampstead socialist.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.
My apologies - you've adopted the morality of an extreme anti-nationalist. Although it's clearly not an inflexible morality, since it permits you to take your doses of the vaccine ahead of our putative elderly Greek in order to protect yourself, and instead to give away the doses belonging to other people to signal your virtue at no cost to yourself.
Because that's the moral thing to do.
That's back to "if you favour higher taxes why don't you donate to HMRC?"
Sterile and a dead end.
Have you gone insane? Do you genuinely believe that you have the right to be protected yourself but that other British citizens who also pay the taxes to fund the vaccines should be forced to go without for God knows how long while you send their doses abroad?
This can't be real. It wouldn't work as a parody of a Hampstead socialist.
Sadly it is genuine, intially though he has rowed back a little now he even argued those vaccine doses should go to the hard up europeans
That looks like a parody - absurd holocaust parallels, link to David Icke, reference to nanochips, it's all about profit for Bill Gates, pushing of alternative treatments.
If it is real, then free speech is not an issue, people putting that out there will be killing people.
And how the heck did Piers Corbyn get to be a prominent figure of the absolute lunatics?
That looks like a parody - absurd holocaust parallels, link to David Icke, reference to nanochips, it's all about profit for Bill Gates, pushing of alternative treatments.
If it is real, then free speech is not an issue, people putting that out there will be killing people.
And how the heck did Piers Corbyn get to be a prominent figure of the absolute lunatics?
Just read the blog from David Allen Green (remainer lawyer) on this and the first thing he noticed was the same as what @Sean_F noticed that the EU contract was with AstraZeneca AB of Sweden, not the parent. This seems extremely basic to me because AZ AB would be a buyer of vaccine doses from AZ plc not the owner of the manufactured doses. I don't understand why anyone would get such a serious contract with a subsidiary rather than the parent, it's really very basic, you make the parent take on the liability, always.
It actually does feel like one of those ideological decisions taken by the commission to support the "European" part of AZ rather than the British parent company, which would be absolutely hilarious given the accusations Boris got of not signing up to the doomed EU scheme on ideological grounds.
That looks like a parody - absurd holocaust parallels, link to David Icke, reference to nanochips, it's all about profit for Bill Gates, pushing of alternative treatments.
If it is real, then free speech is not an issue, people putting that out there will be killing people.
And how the heck did Piers Corbyn get to be a prominent figure of the absolute lunatics?
You describe SKS as a “successful” former DPP. Can you tell us on what basis you are measuring success?
Well, he wasn't done for soliciting, which is an improvement on one of his predecessors.
That is a low bar for the definition of "successful".
I expect most pb-ers can ease themselves over it.
Given how many lawyers we have on this board, you may be being optimistic.
Thought that Sir Keir Starmer got his knighthood for services rendered as a public persecutor (sp?).
Is that any sign of success? OR do they hand 'em out just for showing up, like a pre-school "graduation"?
It's a bit like the Nobel Peace Prize which you can qualify for if you are a US President whose name doesn't start with B (sorry Joe, them's the rules) or T (obviously).
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.
That is a lovely way to see things but not the way the world works. The best model of government (the sort of government you'd want to live under, anyway) is that of a social contract which we as selfish actors (I'm afraid) enter into with the government. The deal is that they look out for their own population, not of the world in general. This isn't quite as greedy and Hobbesian an outlook as it sounds, because a lot of kinds of altruism actually pay for themselves and because there are strong arguments based on efficient resource allocation which say that net benefits are maximised if countries stick to what they know best; but when the chips are down a government is politically and morally obliged to save its own 40 year olds from a slight risk way before it turns its attention to anyone else's 80 year olds. If it thinks different it can try for election on that basis. Come to think about it Corbyn kinda did, with his overt contempt for the UK's Labour client vote poor at the expense of the Palestinians.
Normally the case in practice, yes, although I don't go along with the notion that it's either in theory or as a matter of realism the best model possible. Also do not dispute that "sorting ourselves first come what may" is probably a vote winner. Indeed I note that Labour are making such noises in opposition to Truss's more internationalist ones.
However, leaving aside the ethics, in this case there is self-interest in a collectivist approach to fighting the pandemic. Right now there isn't a choice to be made, since Covid is not under control here, but the time may well come when there is. And if so, imo our approach should not be one of no diversion of supply as long as there remains a single unwillingly unjabbed arm in Blighty.
Yuge practical danger there: if you leave UK under 50s unjabbed because the risk to them is negligible, in favour of more vulnerable foreigners, and there is then a mutation such that hundreds or thousands of them die when they would have lived if jabbed, you are dead in the water. No govt could risk that.
Just read the blog from David Allen Green (remainer lawyer) on this and the first thing he noticed was the same as what @Sean_F noticed that the EU contract was with AstraZeneca AB of Sweden, not the parent. This seems extremely basic to me because AZ AB would be a buyer of vaccine doses from AZ plc not the owner of the manufactured doses. I don't understand why anyone would get such a serious contract with a subsidiary rather than the parent, it's really very basic, you make the parent take on the liability, always.
It actually does feel like one of those ideological decisions taken by the commission to support the "European" part of AZ rather than the British parent company, which would be absolutely hilarious.
Hang on: I suspect that the corporate parent enters into very few (if any) contracts, except those with its subsidiaries. From my CFO days, the holding company would never enter intro contractual arrangements, other than with lawyers or accountants, as a risk management measure. Simply, you want the limited liability shield to be as far down the corporate structure as possible.
Edit to add: while the UK will have contracted with a UK entity, it also won't have contracted with the group parent.
@williamglenn btw way can I add my voice to those that have praised you. I am genuinely impressed and you have changed my mind on you the way you have been willing to criticize the eu....never easy
Just read the blog from David Allen Green (remainer lawyer) on this and the first thing he noticed was the same as what @Sean_F noticed that the EU contract was with AstraZeneca AB of Sweden, not the parent. This seems extremely basic to me because AZ AB would be a buyer of vaccine doses from AZ plc not the owner of the manufactured doses. I don't understand why anyone would get such a serious contract with a subsidiary rather than the parent, it's really very basic, you make the parent take on the liability, always.
It actually does feel like one of those ideological decisions taken by the commission to support the "European" part of AZ rather than the British parent company, which would be absolutely hilarious given the accusations Boris got of not signing up to the doomed EU scheme on ideological grounds.
Just read the blog from David Allen Green (remainer lawyer) on this and the first thing he noticed was the same as what @Sean_F noticed that the EU contract was with AstraZeneca AB of Sweden, not the parent. This seems extremely basic to me because AZ AB would be a buyer of vaccine doses from AZ plc not the owner of the manufactured doses. I don't understand why anyone would get such a serious contract with a subsidiary rather than the parent, it's really very basic, you make the parent take on the liability, always.
It actually does feel like one of those ideological decisions taken by the commission to support the "European" part of AZ rather than the British parent company, which would be absolutely hilarious given the accusations Boris got of not signing up to the doomed EU scheme on ideological grounds.
Even at the most basic level, one has to conclude they didn’t understand what they’d signed. I am amazed and surprised because in my experience Commission Legal Services are not bad.
Just read the blog from David Allen Green (remainer lawyer) on this and the first thing he noticed was the same as what @Sean_F noticed that the EU contract was with AstraZeneca AB of Sweden, not the parent. This seems extremely basic to me because AZ AB would be a buyer of vaccine doses from AZ plc not the owner of the manufactured doses. I don't understand why anyone would get such a serious contract with a subsidiary rather than the parent, it's really very basic, you make the parent take on the liability, always.
It actually does feel like one of those ideological decisions taken by the commission to support the "European" part of AZ rather than the British parent company, which would be absolutely hilarious given the accusations Boris got of not signing up to the doomed EU scheme on ideological grounds.
Even at the most basic level, one has to conclude they didn’t understand what they’d signed. I am amazed and surprised because in my experience Commission Legal Services are not bad.
There may have been political pressure to sign though
1. No movement possible until phase one is complete 2. Government might then consider slowing down the immunisation of the young and fit (there's zero probability of them stopping) and giving some of the vaccine doses away to help others 3. You can understand why they might want to throw various elements of the international community a bone on this; however... 4. I like having fully-functional internal organs, so it would be hypocritical of me to support any such action when it increases still further my risk of ending up as a Long Covid blighted wreck whilst I wait and wait and wait. Not to mention solving the dilemma of whether or not to travel to see vaccinated older relatives I've not seen for many months, when I'm still defenceless and would have to make long journeys on dirty trains full of dirty strangers in order to do so. Consequently... 5. I don't want the Government to send any of the stuff overseas until the whole adult population has had both jabs, or until there are more vaccines then it can possibly use for the NHS, and the surplus can therefore be donated safely
And sorry if that's desperately selfish and everything, but none of us is perfect so I'm not going to beat myself up about it.
Just read the blog from David Allen Green (remainer lawyer) on this and the first thing he noticed was the same as what @Sean_F noticed that the EU contract was with AstraZeneca AB of Sweden, not the parent. This seems extremely basic to me because AZ AB would be a buyer of vaccine doses from AZ plc not the owner of the manufactured doses. I don't understand why anyone would get such a serious contract with a subsidiary rather than the parent, it's really very basic, you make the parent take on the liability, always.
It actually does feel like one of those ideological decisions taken by the commission to support the "European" part of AZ rather than the British parent company, which would be absolutely hilarious.
Hang on: I suspect that the corporate parent enters into very few (if any) contracts, except those with its subsidiaries. From my CFO days, the holding company would never enter intro contractual arrangements, other than with lawyers or accountants, as a risk management measure. Simply, you want the limited liability shield to be as far down the corporate structure as possible.
Edit to add: while the UK will have contracted with a UK entity, it also won't have contracted with the group parent.
To some extent if you’re the EU or the U.K. you don’t much care. It’s rare for you to have to exercise contractual rights in court because you have so much scope to twist arms in other ways; if you are in the right.
Just read the blog from David Allen Green (remainer lawyer) on this and the first thing he noticed was the same as what @Sean_F noticed that the EU contract was with AstraZeneca AB of Sweden, not the parent. This seems extremely basic to me because AZ AB would be a buyer of vaccine doses from AZ plc not the owner of the manufactured doses. I don't understand why anyone would get such a serious contract with a subsidiary rather than the parent, it's really very basic, you make the parent take on the liability, always.
It actually does feel like one of those ideological decisions taken by the commission to support the "European" part of AZ rather than the British parent company, which would be absolutely hilarious given the accusations Boris got of not signing up to the doomed EU scheme on ideological grounds.
Even at the most basic level, one has to conclude they didn’t understand what they’d signed. I am amazed and surprised because in my experience Commission Legal Services are not bad.
As the dispute has been political, with the Commission desperate to rope the UK into it, there's every possibility that the Legal Services know what was signed up to but the Commission didn't care.
And that's not conspiracy - they are asking people to buy the explanation that someone, somehow, inadvertently triggered the NI protocol. And the Commission president is therefore free and clear. And people are pretending to buy that because 'unity'.
Just read the blog from David Allen Green (remainer lawyer) on this and the first thing he noticed was the same as what @Sean_F noticed that the EU contract was with AstraZeneca AB of Sweden, not the parent. This seems extremely basic to me because AZ AB would be a buyer of vaccine doses from AZ plc not the owner of the manufactured doses. I don't understand why anyone would get such a serious contract with a subsidiary rather than the parent, it's really very basic, you make the parent take on the liability, always.
It actually does feel like one of those ideological decisions taken by the commission to support the "European" part of AZ rather than the British parent company, which would be absolutely hilarious.
Hang on: I suspect that the corporate parent enters into very few (if any) contracts, except those with its subsidiaries. From my CFO days, the holding company would never enter intro contractual arrangements, other than with lawyers or accountants, as a risk management measure. Simply, you want the limited liability shield to be as far down the corporate structure as possible.
Edit to add: while the UK will have contracted with a UK entity, it also won't have contracted with the group parent.
For a contract of this level of importance wouldn't the buyer insist on parent liability though? From what we've been able to read about the UK side of things the UK contract gives the UK government first charge on 100m doses manufactured in the UK so either the government has made AstraZeneca plc liable for that or AstraZeneca UK Ltd owns all UK manufactured doses by way of being the contractor of Cobra Biologics, Wockhardt and Oxford Biomedica rather than the parent.
If I was the UK government that is how I'd structure the deal, or in fact have AZ incorporate a new company "AstraZeneca Vaccines UK Ltd" or something like that and have it completely separated so other parts of the company are internal buyers and have no charge on any supply it receives.
Great show. Could have been just a standard procedural, then eased itself into something so much more. I loved the main bad guy in the end, and his motivation for AIs to direct affairs like Olympian gods.
Comments
https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/758140/hypoxia-definition-flight-mask
However, leaving aside the ethics, in this case there is self-interest in a collectivist approach to fighting the pandemic. Right now there isn't a choice to be made, since Covid is not under control here, but the time may well come when there is. And if so, imo our approach should not be one of no diversion of supply as long as there remains a single unwillingly unjabbed arm in Blighty.
But no. As far as I can see, he is actually exulting in the fact that the EU has done millions more jabs than Africa, thus proving that the EU is great.
They are fucking mad. What a repulsive organisation
And the other Chinese one at 50% is really borderline.
...just as long as they've had their jabs first.
You help yourself and then you can put one on your child.
Put one on your child and you pass out before you can put your own on - and nobody can look after your child.
Covid has wrecked one friend for a year (He seems to perhaps be recovering a bit now), and killed someone two years younger than me
But in all seriousness he did a great job in dealing with the swift and mass prosecutions of the 2011 rioters.
He managed the prosecutions of parliamentarians for expense fraud and handled the Chris Huhne prosecution with tact.
To be told my turn should be given away completely once we're done vaccinating those older then I simply go without - its repulsive.
But he's a eurocrat, they just sail on and on.
It's like the last ten days have been scripted by Nigel Farage, and Bill Cash. On acid.
And I'd quite like to see the end of this dreadful global pandemic.
Hope you're cool with that too.
https://twitter.com/Leo_Pollak/status/1355935952431149069
Also, @Cyclefree, I saw your objection to the idea, I'll take this opportunity to explain why it would be in our favour to do this and why it isn't going to make any difference to how quickly our scheme will get to everyone under the age of 50.
Firstly, in April we are going to take delivery of Moderna and Novavax, these plug into the Pfizer and AZ supply chains directly with Moderna requiring a less extreme temperature for storage and transportations and a slightly longer shelf life meaning there won't be as much of an issue with wasted doses. It has the same or better efficacy. To take advantage of both Pfizer and Moderna jabs at the same time we'd need to expand our super-cold logistics chain, this is both time consuming and costly and by the time we get around to it the programme will be done anyway.
Next, the Novavax vaccine has got 89% overall efficacy and 100% efficacy against death, hospitalisation and severe symptoms. It has very high efficacy against Kent COVID and doesn't require a 12 week gap from first to second jab to reach this high level of protection as the AZ vaccine needs. Using Novavax instead of AZ will actually get us to the end of lockdown faster than using AZ, so as soon as we start receiving volume deliveries in April it needs to be prioritised over AZ for these two reasons (proven high efficacy against Kent COVID and a shorter delta between jabs).
Between Moderna (6 weeks to full efficacy) and Novavax (4 weeks to full efficacy) we should receive around 4-6m doses per week from April, there are ~30m people in phase 2 (everyone under 50) which means we can get through them and get everyone full two dose immunity by the end of June with this strategy. With AZ we'd need to wait for 12 weeks from first to second jab and then another three weeks to reach full efficacy, so if we give the first under 50s the jab in the first week of April it will be 15 weeks until they can live normally again, if we give them Novavax it's just 4 weeks and Moderna is 6 weeks.
...continued...
It may seem odd to give away vaccine jabs and still be better off but that's the position we're in, by April we will literally be swimming in vaccines, more than we'll be able to reasonably use so keeping them in our fridges would be a mistake when we could use them to leverage the EU into funding COVAX or failing that, helping South Africa or Brazil get cases down.
I completely reject the WHO idea that we should stop doing jabs once everyone over 65 is done to then give away our supply, it would be completely unfair to everyone living in the UK. We're doing our part for COVAX and the world's poorest with money and actions, we've invest in production capacity in the UK to make 600m doses of various vaccines, last year we had precisely zero, we've gone from being a vaccine nobody to being a vaccine somebody and AIUI the government sees this as just the beginning and more capacity is being planned. We are doing our part to inoculate the world's poor, the WHO can go and take a long walk off a short pier if it thinks we should give away our current supplies to the EU because they failed to plan properly.
Because that's the moral thing to do.
If it is real, then free speech is not an issue, people putting that out there will be killing people.
And how the heck did Piers Corbyn get to be a prominent figure of the absolute lunatics?
I knew Piers Corbyn was extreme - but is he channelling.... Macron now?
I vaguely recall patronising crap explaining to me and others about how the EU was an institution based on law and legal principles in front of which we could only grovel and ask for forgiveness. Ratner was a complete amateur at destroying a brand compared with the likes of UvdL and Selmayr.
I'm not sure if the new variant and its effects have changed that.
A relative of ours had a complete stem cell transplant over a year ago. She still receives visits to hospital and associated treatments. Some life (literally) goes on.
Anyone can see
Corbyn really matters
Corbyn really matters to me
If it does, then I disagree with you on the priorities.
Shows how rubbish the EU is doing, obviously.
Sterile and a dead end.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D06IAM_3_DY
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1339153958246420480
Look at the 2 responses - knocks it out of the park
What a shame Starmer never abided by that sentiment.
This can't be real. It wouldn't work as a parody of a Hampstead socialist.
Is that any sign of success? OR do they hand 'em out just for showing up, like a pre-school "graduation"?
Congratulations, Piers.
Then I went to Piers Corbyn's website (https://www.stopnewnormal.net/downloads), and it contains links to the pamphlet.
So, he really is spreading this shit.
It actually does feel like one of those ideological decisions taken by the commission to support the "European" part of AZ rather than the British parent company, which would be absolutely hilarious given the accusations Boris got of not signing up to the doomed EU scheme on ideological grounds.
Edit to add: while the UK will have contracted with a UK entity, it also won't have contracted with the group parent.
1. No movement possible until phase one is complete
2. Government might then consider slowing down the immunisation of the young and fit (there's zero probability of them stopping) and giving some of the vaccine doses away to help others
3. You can understand why they might want to throw various elements of the international community a bone on this; however...
4. I like having fully-functional internal organs, so it would be hypocritical of me to support any such action when it increases still further my risk of ending up as a Long Covid blighted wreck whilst I wait and wait and wait. Not to mention solving the dilemma of whether or not to travel to see vaccinated older relatives I've not seen for many months, when I'm still defenceless and would have to make long journeys on dirty trains full of dirty strangers in order to do so. Consequently...
5. I don't want the Government to send any of the stuff overseas until the whole adult population has had both jabs, or until there are more vaccines then it can possibly use for the NHS, and the surplus can therefore be donated safely
And sorry if that's desperately selfish and everything, but none of us is perfect so I'm not going to beat myself up about it.
For context - a dying AI trying to explain it's understanding of mortality to it's dying creator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av6x8PD0nXA
And that's not conspiracy - they are asking people to buy the explanation that someone, somehow, inadvertently triggered the NI protocol. And the Commission president is therefore free and clear. And people are pretending to buy that because 'unity'.
So anything is possible.
If I was the UK government that is how I'd structure the deal, or in fact have AZ incorporate a new company "AstraZeneca Vaccines UK Ltd" or something like that and have it completely separated so other parts of the company are internal buyers and have no charge on any supply it receives.