Mr. Divvie, using jabs isn't the same as hoarding them.
By definition, when they're used, that vaccine dose is gone.
Hoarding them is what the SNP appears to be doing with their stockpiles.
How can you know that? Releasing numbers of vaccine stocks would be a breach of national security according to HMG.
There's no UK vaccine stocks, except in Scotland.
The sensitive numbers are the future deliveries, for reasons that should be apparent from the last week's news.
Weirdly excited voice: The UK is going to have access to X hundred million vaccines this year!
Solemnly serious voice: The numbers for future deliveries of vaccines are VERY sensitive.
Weirdly excited voice again: Ireland will be biting our hand off for some of our hundreds of millions of vaccines!
It's not about the UK. It's about poor VDL.
I know this is going to hurt (stretches the brain) , but imagine someone who is literally worse at her job than all those "London Politicians". SLAB would have kicked her out....
She has industriously proved this in a career of perfect failure, spanning decades.
Those vaccine numbers would upset her. And when she gets upset... well it's not good.
And Macron might start channeling Trump again...
Sorry, your posts only have veracity when they include a confirmatory anecdote about an acquaintance telling you this or a friend reporting that. Which is most of them tbf.
She is, but so is Boris, and so is (or was) Trump. And several of the corporate VPs I've worked under.
WW2 analogies are always helpful and it has been theorised that the rapid rotation of American generals between theatres where they were bogged down, rather than condeming them as failures to be consigned to outer darkness, was key to allied success.
She is quite special
Imagine a Boris Johnson, who had caused the Olympics to collapse when Mayor of London, along with the entire of TfL, say.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
The last place I saw the word "Jocks" used was in "The Complete McAuslan". Given this was written some little time ago....
That surprised me - I was going to say you obviously have a sheltered life, but on reflection it's simply that you don't see quite as much on Scottish current affairs as TUD and I do,including some of the reaction - quite understandably.
This, for instance, is a prime UK commentator only a few months ago.
"A prime UK commentator" who is pimping out car insurance in the middle of his video, with a "ticker" on his video pimping out car insurance?
And who agrees with what you want politically?
And agrees with what you want politically also, unless all your democracy stuff is bullshit.
Yes he does.
I still wouldn't call him "a prime UK commentator" though. I wouldn't call myself a prime UK commentator and I believe in everything I believe in.
He's an old has-been pimping out car insurance.
Well, the Sun are, or recently were*, willing to pay him a lot more than you for assorted commentary and pensees.
*not sure when he stopped
According to Wikipedia it was 1994 he ceased to be Editor of the Sun and he hasn't been paid as a commentator since 2017.
Frankly if we never saw him again it would be too soon. Hateful vile man - what he published over Hillsborough I would never forgive him or the Sun for - using the word Jocks in a stupid online video is frankly nothing compared to that.
The man should have zero credibility and never be taken seriously by anyone.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
The issue with point ii is that your definition of sufficient won't be the same as others.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
Scientist on R4 making the point that similar mutations are cropping up independently across the world.
Viruses mutate all the time. Suggesting this has only happened in SA, the UK and Brazil is naive.
What puzzles me is the similarly shaped, up/down, arrowhead shaped graph of cases in both the UK and South Africa in January. Given vaccination hasn’t started in SA yet, either (1) social distancing in both countries has worked incredibly well against both countries’ variants, or (2) both variants’ increased transmissibility has resulted in more infections (many asymptomatic) and thus the early stages of herd immunity emerging amongst the most exposed parts of their populations. I cannot think of a third possibility.
But surely the sort of testing regime we are running which is no longer based purely on symptomatic cases would ick up such a large increase in asymptomatic cases. And it has not. I don't deny your logic, only that the evidence does not currently seem to support it.
You are absolutely right that my conclusion with respect to the U.K. has no evidence and I probably should not have stretched my point that far. But there is evidence in respect of India and South Africa where there has been significant antibody testing quoted in the pieces I posted this morning and yesterday evening and I don’t think it unreasonable, given the similar shape of ours and SA’s graphs, to throw it out there as a hypothesis.
This pandemic will end come what may - either with an unbearable body count (particularly in the west) or with vaccines. Thankfully we seem to be on the second route out now but our appalling death toll already sometimes makes me think we’re taking some sort of middle route. Ferguson et al said in their famous paper last March that reaching natural herd immunity would kill half a million. We may well get to a quarter of a million.
The virus will indeed mutate but immunity is not a zero sum game. COVID is not Captain Trips - having got it or been vaccinated or infected our bodies will always have enough memory of fighting it the first time to have a much more effective defence the second.
Might be a hideous death toll anywhere. After all, when we zoom in on Manaus (95% below the age of 70), they racked up a horrific butchers bill to get as close to herd immunity as they had, and they're still suffering outbreaks.
In the longer run, the damage done to some survivors (Long Covid) may end up to be the longest term public health problem coming out of this. We talk about "people with underlying conditions" but in the after-covid era, that number will be considerably higher than it was in the before-covid era (and it was already a lot higher than people seem to think when they discuss it).
Two of our younger grandchildren attend their Junior School, as both of their parents are keyworkers.
I was talking to their mother yesterday who said they are considering home schooling them, due to the social media abuse the parents of the children are receiving from parents of the children who are not entitled to go to their school
Apparently it is very upsetting and creating a divide between the two groups of parents, with considerable resentment
This is another reason for the schools to return as soon as possible, and it would be interesting to hear comments from the teachers on this forum
On Sturgeon's polling, she has lost 5% favourability in January with Opinium - from +15 to +10.
(Starmer has lost 6%. Ed Davey has lost 4%. Boris has lost 2%)
She has more of it to lose of course.
Oh indeed. But from the glee of posters north of the border, you wouldn't have known that polling wise, only Starmer had a worse January than Sturgeon.
On the main point, I agree with the general principle of ensuring our vaccine supply which has come at great cost should be used for our own citizens before we start planning to sell/give it to other nations.
However, we have contracted supply of over 400m doses. In April the UK and US are going to be swimming in vaccines. We will be receiving them from four different suppliers at a rate of around 6-9m doses per week and if we elect to use all four we will need to set up a third specialised logistics chain for Moderna which needs refrigeration at -28 degrees but can't be stored in the -70 degrees fridges being used for the Pfizer vaccine. The Novavax and AZ vaccines are compatible wrt their logistics and we could use them both at the same time quite easily.
By around June we will have done 60m injections IMO and be able to do 25m per month meaning by the end of July it will all be done and we will hopefully have achieved a good level of herd immunity in the adult population.
One major argument for holding back our Moderna doses is that they are running a trial for under 18s which is set to report back soon. 17m doses of it would be more than enough to run an under 18s scheme in August and September to ensure the school year isn't disrupted.
Additionally I think the government may ask for our J&J doses to be modified to tackle the various mutations in circulation before taking delivery.
So where does that leave us wrt spare doses? I don't think we're going to do it until June once everyone has been offered their first dose. The political uproar of giving vaccines doses to other countries while there are people here who haven't had their first jab would be massive. However, that doesn't preclude the UK allowing for UK manufacturing capacity to be used to fulfill other countries contracts before all 100m of our AZ doses or 60m Novavax doses are delivered. I imagine that's where the flexibility will be from April onwards because at full capacity between just AZ and Novavax we could receive 35m doses per month from domestic manufacturing, it's highly unlikely we'll have the capacity to use it all.
Two of our younger grandchildren attend their Junior School, as both of their parents are keyworkers.
I was talking to their mother yesterday who said they are considering home schooling them, due to the social media abuse the parents of the children are receiving from parents of the children who are not entitled to go to their school
Apparently it is very upsetting and creating a divide between the two groups of parents, with considerable resentment
This is another reason for the schools to return as soon as possible, and it would be interesting to hear comments from the teachers on this forum
Completely agree. It`s an issue that can only endure in the very short term. There is a feeling - just a feeling - that the key worker children are currently "enjoying" an advantage.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
I knew I could rely on you, happy to provide your stalker fix now Malc has been banned.
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
This is a non-issue. We are not hoarding: hoarding is not giving someone something lifesaving now because you might need it in six months' time. We aren't stockpiling anything, and have stated the clearest possible intention to distribute worldwide once our needs are met. Secondly even if you subscribe to the myth that the disease is harmless to the under 50s (and that isn't a grey area, it is simply wrong) the virus mutates like shit and there is nothing to say that a more lethal to the young mutation will arise and will be lethal to under 50s who would have survived with a vaccine. Thirdly this is preeminently a money/mouth situation: either have a vaccine or don't, but what you can't do is have one "with a heavy heart" or "with considerable hesitancy."
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
I knew I could rely on you, happy to provide your stalker fix now Malc has been banned.
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
"Stalker". You give yourself too much credit. Why the hell would I want to stalk you? And quite obviously you don't give a fuck who uses the word. You're about the only one who does use it.
On the main point, I agree with the general principle of ensuring our vaccine supply which has come at great cost should be used for our own citizens before we start planning to sell/give it to other nations.
However, we have contracted supply of over 400m doses. In April the UK and US are going to be swimming in vaccines. We will be receiving them from four different suppliers at a rate of around 6-9m doses per week and if we elect to use all four we will need to set up a third specialised logistics chain for Moderna which needs refrigeration at -28 degrees but can't be stored in the -70 degrees fridges being used for the Pfizer vaccine. The Novavax and AZ vaccines are compatible wrt their logistics and we could use them both at the same time quite easily.
By around June we will have done 60m injections IMO and be able to do 25m per month meaning by the end of July it will all be done and we will hopefully have achieved a good level of herd immunity in the adult population.
One major argument for holding back our Moderna doses is that they are running a trial for under 18s which is set to report back soon. 17m doses of it would be more than enough to run an under 18s scheme in August and September to ensure the school year isn't disrupted.
Additionally I think the government may ask for our J&J doses to be modified to tackle the various mutations in circulation before taking delivery.
So where does that leave us wrt spare doses? I don't think we're going to do it until June once everyone has been offered their first dose. The political uproar of giving vaccines doses to other countries while there are people here who haven't had their first jab would be massive. However, that doesn't preclude the UK allowing for UK manufacturing capacity to be used to fulfill other countries contracts before all 100m of our AZ doses or 60m Novavax doses are delivered. I imagine that's where the flexibility will be from April onwards because at full capacity between just AZ and Novavax we could receive 35m doses per month from domestic manufacturing, it's highly unlikely we'll have the capacity to use it all.
I cannot believe that the government would give away vaccines at the possible expense of its own citizens. I`m surprised this narrative has developed the traction that it has.
On the 400m - we`ll need vaccines every year presumably. At least for a few years. Will they "keep"?
On the main point, I agree with the general principle of ensuring our vaccine supply which has come at great cost should be used for our own citizens before we start planning to sell/give it to other nations.
However, we have contracted supply of over 400m doses. In April the UK and US are going to be swimming in vaccines. We will be receiving them from four different suppliers at a rate of around 6-9m doses per week and if we elect to use all four we will need to set up a third specialised logistics chain for Moderna which needs refrigeration at -28 degrees but can't be stored in the -70 degrees fridges being used for the Pfizer vaccine. The Novavax and AZ vaccines are compatible wrt their logistics and we could use them both at the same time quite easily.
By around June we will have done 60m injections IMO and be able to do 25m per month meaning by the end of July it will all be done and we will hopefully have achieved a good level of herd immunity in the adult population.
One major argument for holding back our Moderna doses is that they are running a trial for under 18s which is set to report back soon. 17m doses of it would be more than enough to run an under 18s scheme in August and September to ensure the school year isn't disrupted.
Additionally I think the government may ask for our J&J doses to be modified to tackle the various mutations in circulation before taking delivery.
So where does that leave us wrt spare doses? I don't think we're going to do it until June once everyone has been offered their first dose. The political uproar of giving vaccines doses to other countries while there are people here who haven't had their first jab would be massive. However, that doesn't preclude the UK allowing for UK manufacturing capacity to be used to fulfill other countries contracts before all 100m of our AZ doses or 60m Novavax doses are delivered. I imagine that's where the flexibility will be from April onwards because at full capacity between just AZ and Novavax we could receive 35m doses per month from domestic manufacturing, it's highly unlikely we'll have the capacity to use it all.
It is worth noting that while India has vast capacity (and growing it), they are planning to use much of that, this year, for vaccinations in India. Not seen any actual figures for what they can export, when.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
The last place I saw the word "Jocks" used was in "The Complete McAuslan". Given this was written some little time ago....
That surprised me - I was going to say you obviously have a sheltered life, but on reflection it's simply that you don't see quite as much on Scottish current affairs as TUD and I do,including some of the reaction - quite understandably.
This, for instance, is a prime UK commentator only a few months ago.
"A prime UK commentator" who is pimping out car insurance in the middle of his video, with a "ticker" on his video pimping out car insurance?
And who agrees with what you want politically?
And agrees with what you want politically also, unless all your democracy stuff is bullshit.
Yes he does.
I still wouldn't call him "a prime UK commentator" though. I wouldn't call myself a prime UK commentator and I believe in everything I believe in.
He's an old has-been pimping out car insurance.
Well, the Sun are, or recently were*, willing to pay him a lot more than you for assorted commentary and pensees.
*not sure when he stopped
He resigned before being fired in 2017 after writing a column comparing the footballer Ross Barkley, who is mixed race, to a gorilla and making disparaging comments about the city of Liverpool.
I suspect he would have been fired were it not for the fact he was a former editor and the Liverpool comments which would be rather difficult to fire him over.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
The pandemic isn't going to be "under control" until the virus is eliminated and all social distancing measures have been entirely removed in full.
If it is possible for a pub or restaurant not just to be open (currently they're all closed afterall), but to be open normally with no social distancing measures. If we are eg able to safely go to a packed, crowded bar and have over a hundred people stood standing room only shoulder to shoulder watching Liverpool vs Manchester United then the pandemic is under control - if we can not, it is not.
Yes defeating the virus globally is necessary but that isn't done by sending what is internationally a tiny number of doses overseas, but to us a dramatic number of doses. Again 7 million doses would allow jabs for over 10% of our population but not even 0.1% of global population - you are an innumerate fool if you think vaccinating the world is possible at the expense of not vaccinating ourselves.
It isn't either/or we need to do both and the best way to do both is to finish the job here and then be able to work properly and afford to pay for the rest of the world. We don't need to send a few million doses that would let us finish the job here overseas, we need to finish the job here and send hundreds of millions of doses overseas.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
I knew I could rely on you, happy to provide your stalker fix now Malc has been banned.
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
"Stalker". You give yourself too much credit. Why the hell would I want to stalk you? And quite obviously you don't give a fuck who uses the word. You're about the only one who does use it.
You seem to latch onto more of my posts than I do yours. You could remedy that quite easily of course.
On the main point, I agree with the general principle of ensuring our vaccine supply which has come at great cost should be used for our own citizens before we start planning to sell/give it to other nations.
However, we have contracted supply of over 400m doses. In April the UK and US are going to be swimming in vaccines. We will be receiving them from four different suppliers at a rate of around 6-9m doses per week and if we elect to use all four we will need to set up a third specialised logistics chain for Moderna which needs refrigeration at -28 degrees but can't be stored in the -70 degrees fridges being used for the Pfizer vaccine. The Novavax and AZ vaccines are compatible wrt their logistics and we could use them both at the same time quite easily.
By around June we will have done 60m injections IMO and be able to do 25m per month meaning by the end of July it will all be done and we will hopefully have achieved a good level of herd immunity in the adult population.
One major argument for holding back our Moderna doses is that they are running a trial for under 18s which is set to report back soon. 17m doses of it would be more than enough to run an under 18s scheme in August and September to ensure the school year isn't disrupted.
Additionally I think the government may ask for our J&J doses to be modified to tackle the various mutations in circulation before taking delivery.
So where does that leave us wrt spare doses? I don't think we're going to do it until June once everyone has been offered their first dose. The political uproar of giving vaccines doses to other countries while there are people here who haven't had their first jab would be massive. However, that doesn't preclude the UK allowing for UK manufacturing capacity to be used to fulfill other countries contracts before all 100m of our AZ doses or 60m Novavax doses are delivered. I imagine that's where the flexibility will be from April onwards because at full capacity between just AZ and Novavax we could receive 35m doses per month from domestic manufacturing, it's highly unlikely we'll have the capacity to use it all.
It is worth noting that while India has vast capacity (and growing it), they are planning to use much of that, this year, for vaccinations in India. Not seen any actual figures for what they can export, when.
Yeah was about to post that of India's own capacity they intend to use 50% for domestic needs this year and most of next year for the two CEPI vaccines and 100% for the local one.
@Cyclefree: Not one of your finest imo - I struggle to see how it would be immoral to share vaccines at any stage.
I happen to agree that we should vaccinate UK residents first, then help Ireland (because: CTA, land border, and we owe them lots), then help the rest of the world, particularly 3rd world.
But I support this approach for purely selfish and political reasons - nothing to do with morality.
@Cyclefree: Not one of your finest imo - I struggle to see how it would be immoral to share vaccines at any stage.
I happen to agree that we should vaccinate UK residents first, then help Ireland (because: CTA, land border, and we owe them lots), then help the rest of the world, particularly 3rd world.
But I support this approach for purely selfish and political reasons - nothing to do with morality.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
I knew I could rely on you, happy to provide your stalker fix now Malc has been banned.
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
"stalker fix"? Sorry to break it to you mate, but really - nobody gives a shiny shit about you.
The health professionals who are vaccine refuseniks worry me for the demonstration effect. Years ago a well known haemotologist told our Spanish class when we were discussing flu that she would never get the vaccine, but would rely on others to generate herd immunity by doing so. Other members of the class (all retirees) took this expert's word seriously and resolved to follow her example. There seems to be an element of this attitude by some health workers in the current pandemic.
Mr. Divvie, using jabs isn't the same as hoarding them.
By definition, when they're used, that vaccine dose is gone.
Hoarding them is what the SNP appears to be doing with their stockpiles.
How can you know that? Releasing numbers of vaccine stocks would be a breach of national security according to HMG.
TUD, you know we are brimming with Scotch experts on here. They like to pick their target shaming topic, they somehow never manage to select any topic where Scotland is way ahead, ie death rates , or positivity rates perhaps. Ponder endlessly on why we are a week at most behind on vaccines but not a care as to why we are 60% of the death rate, you would almost think it is deliberate. Selective memory is a wonderful thing.
For the EU, the UK is now a third country and competitor. As a result, the EU has adopted the same zero-sum approach to both vaccines and the recently completed trade negotiations. One of the major problems with the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol has been the issue of checks on animal and plant products (what are known as sanitary and phytosanitary checks, or “SPS checks” in the jargon).
That Brussels was willing to give the UK a far less generous deal over SPS checks than it gave New Zealand was indicative of the EU’s new attitude towards the UK, which it sees as a geographically proximate economic competitor. Yet this insistence on relatively stringent checks between the UK and EU also extends to Britain and Northern Ireland, because the latter remains in the EU’s single market for goods.
I'm sure he will continue to be dismissive in public for a few months more, expressing EU solidarity - until the vaccines are actually offered and available, at which point he'll bite the UK's hand off for them.
We don't need to offer the RoI any vaccines, which might cause problems with (or for) the EU and would risk appearing patronising. All we need to do is to vaccinate everyone in NI and then keep vaccinating everyone who turns up or likes to make an appointment. It would leave the RoI free to use their own vaccines on people who can't get over the border.
I'm sure someone else has made this point by now, but never mind. And, @Cyclefree, thanks for the header.
Merely not having Trump as president is the start of the problems for the GOP.
They either need to dump a major chunk of the party - all the way to Senate and Congress - or become, full on, the party of QAnon as the sane people leave.
Two of our younger grandchildren attend their Junior School, as both of their parents are keyworkers.
I was talking to their mother yesterday who said they are considering home schooling them, due to the social media abuse the parents of the children are receiving from parents of the children who are not entitled to go to their school
Apparently it is very upsetting and creating a divide between the two groups of parents, with considerable resentment
This is another reason for the schools to return as soon as possible, and it would be interesting to hear comments from the teachers on this forum
Very sorry to hear that BigG.
I am increasingly frustrated by the willingness of so many to deny others, grass neighours up, argue etc. Sure, things are tough right now. But should we be making them tougher by getting angry all the time? I say no.
My view on vaccines is that they're like the oxygen masks that pop down in front of you on an aeroplane in an emergency: you should put on yours and check it's working properly, before helping others.
It's only with our domestic population protected, and therefore our economy recovering, that we'll have the strength and resources to help the rest of the world get on top of it.
Otherwise we're gambling on everything or nothing, and we might still be 2-3 years away from total global suppression, with all the political, civil and social challenges and upheavals that might pose in the meantime.
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
It absolutely should not make us feel at all uncomfortable.
The first thing the UK should do is to look after ourselves. The first thing India and Yemen and Africa and anywhere else should do is look after themselves. Yemen won't be sending aid to the UK if we don't look after ourselves.
If Yemen aren't capable of looking after themselves and we are capable of helping them as well as ourselves, then there is a moral case to make that we should do both. But its not either/or, it is both.
If ever we choose to cease to look after ourselves, then before very long we won't be able to look after Yemen or anyone else either - and who does that help?
Correct Cycle free. And the Lefty so called 'internationalist' argument to give away our resources to the world is exposed when we look at the idea of reducing safety on our railways spend it on Indian railways. In any event we give billions on foreign aid as it is.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
I knew I could rely on you, happy to provide your stalker fix now Malc has been banned.
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
"stalker fix"? Sorry to break it to you mate, but really - nobody gives a shiny shit about you.
Thanks for making the effort to tell me that. Looking forward to you getting back to some strong English Sparkling Wine content.
@Cyclefree: Not one of your finest imo - I struggle to see how it would be immoral to share vaccines at any stage.
I happen to agree that we should vaccinate UK residents first, then help Ireland (because: CTA, land border, and we owe them lots), then help the rest of the world, particularly 3rd world.
But I support this approach for purely selfish and political reasons - nothing to do with morality.
Ireland has already pretty much said no thanks.
I believe so but in the circumstances Boris offers Ireland all the vaccine they need are they really going to say no
Mr. Divvie, using jabs isn't the same as hoarding them.
By definition, when they're used, that vaccine dose is gone.
Hoarding them is what the SNP appears to be doing with their stockpiles.
How can you know that? Releasing numbers of vaccine stocks would be a breach of national security according to HMG.
TUD, you know we are brimming with Scotch experts on here. They like to pick their target shaming topic, they somehow never manage to select any topic where Scotland is way ahead, ie death rates , or positivity rates perhaps. Ponder endlessly on why we are a week at most behind on vaccines but not a care as to why we are 60% of the death rate, you would almost think it is deliberate. Selective memory is a wonderful thing.
My understanding is that flights from SA have been banned meantime so there shouldn't be people arriving from SA. But it is, once again, too late. The variant is already here and if it is like the Kent variant it will spread quickly because it seems to have a significant advantage in transmissibility.
I have been deeply frustrated by our border policy for a full year now. I have little doubt that at the end of the day we will find it was the largest cause of the second wave and over 70k deaths. It has been just incomprehensible. Hopefully, by the end of May it will no longer matter because we will be safe but the cost has been terrible.
David, very naive as all people will do is go via Germany , France , etc. On radio yesterday a guy said that exactly , was checked at Frankfurt and then flew to England and had no checks whatsoever, just walked through.
For the EU, the UK is now a third country and competitor. As a result, the EU has adopted the same zero-sum approach to both vaccines and the recently completed trade negotiations. One of the major problems with the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol has been the issue of checks on animal and plant products (what are known as sanitary and phytosanitary checks, or “SPS checks” in the jargon).
That Brussels was willing to give the UK a far less generous deal over SPS checks than it gave New Zealand was indicative of the EU’s new attitude towards the UK, which it sees as a geographically proximate economic competitor. Yet this insistence on relatively stringent checks between the UK and EU also extends to Britain and Northern Ireland, because the latter remains in the EU’s single market for goods.
Thanks for the thread piece, Cyclefree, although you are preaching to the converted in me.
When we've dealt with our own lot, we can turn our attention to the needy overseas and I hope we will, but until then we're entitled to maximise our own use and frankly it would be wrong to do otherwise.
I suspect that will be the Government's view and there is no reason it should not have widespread support.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
I knew I could rely on you, happy to provide your stalker fix now Malc has been banned.
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
"Stalker". You give yourself too much credit. Why the hell would I want to stalk you? And quite obviously you don't give a fuck who uses the word. You're about the only one who does use it.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
I knew I could rely on you, happy to provide your stalker fix now Malc has been banned.
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
"Stalker". You give yourself too much credit. Why the hell would I want to stalk you? And quite obviously you don't give a fuck who uses the word. You're about the only one who does use it.
On the main point, I agree with the general principle of ensuring our vaccine supply which has come at great cost should be used for our own citizens before we start planning to sell/give it to other nations.
However, we have contracted supply of over 400m doses. In April the UK and US are going to be swimming in vaccines. We will be receiving them from four different suppliers at a rate of around 6-9m doses per week and if we elect to use all four we will need to set up a third specialised logistics chain for Moderna which needs refrigeration at -28 degrees but can't be stored in the -70 degrees fridges being used for the Pfizer vaccine. The Novavax and AZ vaccines are compatible wrt their logistics and we could use them both at the same time quite easily.
By around June we will have done 60m injections IMO and be able to do 25m per month meaning by the end of July it will all be done and we will hopefully have achieved a good level of herd immunity in the adult population.
One major argument for holding back our Moderna doses is that they are running a trial for under 18s which is set to report back soon. 17m doses of it would be more than enough to run an under 18s scheme in August and September to ensure the school year isn't disrupted.
Additionally I think the government may ask for our J&J doses to be modified to tackle the various mutations in circulation before taking delivery.
So where does that leave us wrt spare doses? I don't think we're going to do it until June once everyone has been offered their first dose. The political uproar of giving vaccines doses to other countries while there are people here who haven't had their first jab would be massive. However, that doesn't preclude the UK allowing for UK manufacturing capacity to be used to fulfill other countries contracts before all 100m of our AZ doses or 60m Novavax doses are delivered. I imagine that's where the flexibility will be from April onwards because at full capacity between just AZ and Novavax we could receive 35m doses per month from domestic manufacturing, it's highly unlikely we'll have the capacity to use it all.
It is worth noting that while India has vast capacity (and growing it), they are planning to use much of that, this year, for vaccinations in India. Not seen any actual figures for what they can export, when.
Yeah was about to post that of India's own capacity they intend to use 50% for domestic needs this year and most of next year for the two CEPI vaccines and 100% for the local one.
Most of the COVAX effort seems to be heading for a start at the *end* of this year - is that right?
@Cyclefree: Not one of your finest imo - I struggle to see how it would be immoral to share vaccines at any stage.
I happen to agree that we should vaccinate UK residents first, then help Ireland (because: CTA, land border, and we owe them lots), then help the rest of the world, particularly 3rd world.
But I support this approach for purely selfish and political reasons - nothing to do with morality.
Ireland has already pretty much said no thanks.
I did not know that. Source?
I saw it on either this or the last thread. but sorry cannot be a*s*d to search.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Scottish nationalists wrongly assume (they have a tendency toward the simplistic) that non-Scots have the same racist hatred of Scots that many of their nationalistic brethren have of the English
Two cheeks of the same arse here, dumb and dumber our local Scotch experts.
"We’re going to stop the Welsh, who absolutely have the worst NHS of all the four nations, coming to England in order to get treatment.’ “They can bugger off. They can die in their own hospitals rather than die in ours.”
This kind of stuff is just pure hate speech, but Kelvin knows what he is doing.
There is a ready audience for ... err ... shockjocks.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
Lol! Nicely done.
His stalking skills come in handy, good to see he is as obsessed with other Scots as well and not just me.
Two of our younger grandchildren attend their Junior School, as both of their parents are keyworkers.
I was talking to their mother yesterday who said they are considering home schooling them, due to the social media abuse the parents of the children are receiving from parents of the children who are not entitled to go to their school
Apparently it is very upsetting and creating a divide between the two groups of parents, with considerable resentment
This is another reason for the schools to return as soon as possible, and it would be interesting to hear comments from the teachers on this forum
Very sorry to hear that BigG.
I am increasingly frustrated by the willingness of so many to deny others, grass neighours up, argue etc. Sure, things are tough right now. But should we be making them tougher by getting angry all the time? I say no.
It seems that this has become the haves v the have not, and it is getting very nasty including involving the children with resentment and division quite widespread amongst the two groups
Just another sad situation to add to so many others caused by covid
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
In a nutshell, this is the problem with those advocating the WHO view, and on the left generally - the default assumption is the UK should take one for the team because, fundamentally, we are a selfish lot and need to show attrition for our "privilege" and historic actions. Moreover, that attrition needs to be disproportionate to outher countries because of our uniquely terrible history and culture.
What makes it even more annoying is that, in most cases, if it was the UK that needed this sort of help and other countries were being asked to help, we would be hearing from the same people why the UK shouldn't be helped (although to be fair there is a logic to that from their view of the world, namely the UK is uniquely "undeserving" and so the population would get what it deserved).
It all comes down to self-loathing. Orwell - as usual - was bang on the money.
One other point. These countries wanted independence and pushed for it. If you want that, then you have to take responsibility for yourself. Why should the UK be paying for the Indian Railways when India is sending rockets into space?
On the main point, I agree with the general principle of ensuring our vaccine supply which has come at great cost should be used for our own citizens before we start planning to sell/give it to other nations.
However, we have contracted supply of over 400m doses. In April the UK and US are going to be swimming in vaccines. We will be receiving them from four different suppliers at a rate of around 6-9m doses per week and if we elect to use all four we will need to set up a third specialised logistics chain for Moderna which needs refrigeration at -28 degrees but can't be stored in the -70 degrees fridges being used for the Pfizer vaccine. The Novavax and AZ vaccines are compatible wrt their logistics and we could use them both at the same time quite easily.
By around June we will have done 60m injections IMO and be able to do 25m per month meaning by the end of July it will all be done and we will hopefully have achieved a good level of herd immunity in the adult population.
One major argument for holding back our Moderna doses is that they are running a trial for under 18s which is set to report back soon. 17m doses of it would be more than enough to run an under 18s scheme in August and September to ensure the school year isn't disrupted.
Additionally I think the government may ask for our J&J doses to be modified to tackle the various mutations in circulation before taking delivery.
So where does that leave us wrt spare doses? I don't think we're going to do it until June once everyone has been offered their first dose. The political uproar of giving vaccines doses to other countries while there are people here who haven't had their first jab would be massive. However, that doesn't preclude the UK allowing for UK manufacturing capacity to be used to fulfill other countries contracts before all 100m of our AZ doses or 60m Novavax doses are delivered. I imagine that's where the flexibility will be from April onwards because at full capacity between just AZ and Novavax we could receive 35m doses per month from domestic manufacturing, it's highly unlikely we'll have the capacity to use it all.
It is worth noting that while India has vast capacity (and growing it), they are planning to use much of that, this year, for vaccinations in India. Not seen any actual figures for what they can export, when.
Yeah was about to post that of India's own capacity they intend to use 50% for domestic needs this year and most of next year for the two CEPI vaccines and 100% for the local one.
Most of the COVAX effort seems to be heading for a start at the *end* of this year - is that right?
Yeah somewhere around then I think. I think it's still trying to pick up new funding, even after Biden gives $4bn it still needs another $6-8bn to be fully funded for global vaccination capacity. The EU should be made to stump up a large portion of it and private donors can close the rest of it.
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
More selfish arguments for sending vaccines overseas might include:- - increasing British influence or soft power - stopping the developing world becoming reliant on Russia or China - slowing the evolution of new, more dangerous variants in unvaccinated populations - allowing British holidaymakers, influencers and business people to travel - reopening export markets - reopening British borders (if we ever get round to closing them).
On the main point, I agree with the general principle of ensuring our vaccine supply which has come at great cost should be used for our own citizens before we start planning to sell/give it to other nations.
However, we have contracted supply of over 400m doses. In April the UK and US are going to be swimming in vaccines. We will be receiving them from four different suppliers at a rate of around 6-9m doses per week and if we elect to use all four we will need to set up a third specialised logistics chain for Moderna which needs refrigeration at -28 degrees but can't be stored in the -70 degrees fridges being used for the Pfizer vaccine. The Novavax and AZ vaccines are compatible wrt their logistics and we could use them both at the same time quite easily.
By around June we will have done 60m injections IMO and be able to do 25m per month meaning by the end of July it will all be done and we will hopefully have achieved a good level of herd immunity in the adult population.
One major argument for holding back our Moderna doses is that they are running a trial for under 18s which is set to report back soon. 17m doses of it would be more than enough to run an under 18s scheme in August and September to ensure the school year isn't disrupted.
Additionally I think the government may ask for our J&J doses to be modified to tackle the various mutations in circulation before taking delivery.
So where does that leave us wrt spare doses? I don't think we're going to do it until June once everyone has been offered their first dose. The political uproar of giving vaccines doses to other countries while there are people here who haven't had their first jab would be massive. However, that doesn't preclude the UK allowing for UK manufacturing capacity to be used to fulfill other countries contracts before all 100m of our AZ doses or 60m Novavax doses are delivered. I imagine that's where the flexibility will be from April onwards because at full capacity between just AZ and Novavax we could receive 35m doses per month from domestic manufacturing, it's highly unlikely we'll have the capacity to use it all.
If we are receiving 35m doses a month, it's not going to take long to work through everyone who wants a vaccine domestically.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Scottish nationalists wrongly assume (they have a tendency toward the simplistic) that non-Scots have the same racist hatred of Scots that many of their nationalistic brethren have of the English
Two cheeks of the same arse here, dumb and dumber our local Scotch experts.
Morning Malcy..Nicola not so sainted.. could be in a bit of bother...
Looks like cases are falling faster than deaths in South Africa. The Israel figures look like what I think we should expect to see where the older population are being vaccinated.
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
More selfish arguments for sending vaccines overseas might include:- - increasing British influence or soft power - stopping the developing world becoming reliant on Russia or China - slowing the evolution of new, more dangerous variants in unvaccinated populations - allowing British holidaymakers, influencers and business people to travel - reopening export markets - reopening British borders (if we ever get round to closing them).
We're paying for hundreds of millions of doses to go overseas.
What there is no reason to do is to not vaccinate our own domestic population. We need to do both. Finish the job in the UK and send hundreds of millions overseas.
Or do you think cancelling the hundreds of millions going overseas, cancelling the vaccine rollout here, sending our domestic rollout overseas instead and continuing to have domestic restrictions here so we can't afford the hundreds of millions of doses for abroad is a better solution?
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
More selfish arguments for sending vaccines overseas might include:- - increasing British influence or soft power - stopping the developing world becoming reliant on Russia or China - slowing the evolution of new, more dangerous variants in unvaccinated populations - allowing British holidaymakers, influencers and business people to travel - reopening export markets - reopening British borders (if we ever get round to closing them).
Hence COVAX - which is funding vaccine production around the world.
For those worried about vaccine nationalism, the COVAX effort is genuinely a good answer.
Instead of just helicoptering in aid, made in "The West", it involve building/enhancing the capability to make vaccines on every continent.
Well at the rate they are going, it certainly will be....and the Dutch seem to be running it wearing a giant Rhino outfit.
This whole idea of it being a marathon is bullshit. It's a sprint all the way. People who say it are covering up for rubbish schemes or terrible purchasing and capacity.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
Lol! Nicely done.
His stalking skills come in handy, good to see he is as obsessed with other Scots as well and not just me.
You have lived a very sheltered life. I have spent much of mine protecting people from actual harrassers and stalkers - doing some actual good for actual real factual people rather than renting my nationalistic spleen into a keyboard as you have lo these many years. For example, I was involved in obtaining one of the first injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act. If you think that calling out some random person sitting in his pajamas somewhere, whose real name and location I have no idea of, is stalking. or anything close to the harm caused by stalking, then you are more naive than even I imagined. And that is saying something.
Well at the rate they are going, it certainly will be....and the Dutch seem to be running it wearing a giant Rhino outfit.
This whole idea of it being a marathon is bullshit. It's a sprint all the way. People who say it are covering up for rubbish schemes or terrible purchasing and capacity.
In the UK it will take months. In eg India it will take a couple of years.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Scottish nationalists wrongly assume (they have a tendency toward the simplistic) that non-Scots have the same racist hatred of Scots that many of their nationalistic brethren have of the English
Two cheeks of the same arse here, dumb and dumber our local Scotch experts.
Morning Malcy..Nicola not so sainted.. could be in a bit of bother...
It does say something when even Drakeford is outperforming her
Well at the rate they are going, it certainly will be....and the Dutch seem to be running it wearing a giant Rhino outfit.
It is completely the wrong attitude. It is not a marathon, it is a sprint.
We should be sprinting every single day to get the doses out. Every vaccine that goes out is literally sprinting against death.
A marathon is only over when you finish it. Every single person vaccinated has a level of protection within a fortnight of getting it - their protection doesn't kick in once everyone else is vaccinated.
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
It absolutely should not make us feel at all uncomfortable.
The first thing the UK should do is to look after ourselves. The first thing India and Yemen and Africa and anywhere else should do is look after themselves. Yemen won't be sending aid to the UK if we don't look after ourselves.
If Yemen aren't capable of looking after themselves and we are capable of helping them as well as ourselves, then there is a moral case to make that we should do both. But its not either/or, it is both.
If ever we choose to cease to look after ourselves, then before very long we won't be able to look after Yemen or anyone else either - and who does that help?
The key word there is "ourselves".
What logically makes ourselves = British, as opposed to considering everyone on the planet part of ourselves?
Now, I don't disagree with receiving my vaccination before a South African grandma. I've long argued in favour of expensive safety measures on British railways, etc.
But I am opposed to nationalism. My ideal is to value all lives equally, and I see it as morally wrong to do otherwise. Perhaps if we had spent the past several decades valuing the lives of the people of Yemen as highly as our own they would now be able to manufacture their own vaccines, instead of starving while dodging British munitions dropping from Saudi-piloted planes?
CNN) - They were there to "Stop the Steal" and to keep the President they revered in office, yet records show that some of the rioters who stormed the US Capitol did not vote in the very election they were protesting.
Many involved in the insurrection professed to be motivated by patriotism, falsely declaring that Trump was the rightful winner of the election. Yet at least eight of the people who are now facing criminal charges for their involvement in the events at the Capitol did not vote in the November 2020 presidential election, according to an analysis of voting records from the states where protestors were arrested and those states where public records show they have lived.
Back to America. The MAGA rioters did not vote.
First, this shows Trump might have won if he'd not intentionally (and "with malice aforethought") suppressed his own vote by telling supporters not to vote by post, and that the Democrats would steal the election anyway.
Second, and with a nod to any Scottish referendum, the oft-touted boycotting of polls is a damn stupid tactic because it never works. It guarantees defeat and the victors never declare the vote to have been invalid on turnout grounds.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
The last place I saw the word "Jocks" used was in "The Complete McAuslan". Given this was written some little time ago....
That surprised me - I was going to say you obviously have a sheltered life, but on reflection it's simply that you don't see quite as much on Scottish current affairs as TUD and I do,including some of the reaction - quite understandably.
This, for instance, is a prime UK commentator only a few months ago.
"A prime UK commentator" who is pimping out car insurance in the middle of his video, with a "ticker" on his video pimping out car insurance?
And who agrees with what you want politically?
And agrees with what you want politically also, unless all your democracy stuff is bullshit.
Yes he does.
I still wouldn't call him "a prime UK commentator" though. I wouldn't call myself a prime UK commentator and I believe in everything I believe in.
He's an old has-been pimping out car insurance.
Well, the Sun are, or recently were*, willing to pay him a lot more than you for assorted commentary and pensees.
*not sure when he stopped
According to Wikipedia it was 1994 he ceased to be Editor of the Sun and he hasn't been paid as a commentator since 2017.
Frankly if we never saw him again it would be too soon. Hateful vile man - what he published over Hillsborough I would never forgive him or the Sun for - using the word Jocks in a stupid online video is frankly nothing compared to that.
The man should have zero credibility and never be taken seriously by anyone.
I certainly didn't picvk him for any apparent agreement with my views or otherwise! Just the first recent example of Jockanese when I had a look on the news bit of Google.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Well at the rate they are going, it certainly will be....and the Dutch seem to be running it wearing a giant Rhino outfit.
This whole idea of it being a marathon is bullshit. It's a sprint all the way. People who say it are covering up for rubbish schemes or terrible purchasing and capacity.
In the UK it will take months. In eg India it will take a couple of years.
It is a marathon.
No it isn't and India plans to have the bulk of their own population done by the end of this year.
It should be treated like a sprint because there's no such thing as getting tired.
Two of our younger grandchildren attend their Junior School, as both of their parents are keyworkers.
I was talking to their mother yesterday who said they are considering home schooling them, due to the social media abuse the parents of the children are receiving from parents of the children who are not entitled to go to their school
Apparently it is very upsetting and creating a divide between the two groups of parents, with considerable resentment
This is another reason for the schools to return as soon as possible, and it would be interesting to hear comments from the teachers on this forum
It should be possible to identify the group 'parents of young-ish children' and give them some priority over others in the same cohort, one would think.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
Giving away vaccines: it is not enough that "UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen".
Younger people do die, albeit rarely, and long-Covid in the younger is a danger. I cannot believe that the government would risk giving away or selling the fruits of its vaccine procurement programme in the knowledge that UK citizens will die or incur long-Covid because their vaccines had been given away. Not going to happen.
The health professionals who are vaccine refuseniks worry me for the demonstration effect. Years ago a well known haemotologist told our Spanish class when we were discussing flu that she would never get the vaccine, but would rely on others to generate herd immunity by doing so. Other members of the class (all retirees) took this expert's word seriously and resolved to follow her example. There seems to be an element of this attitude by some health workers in the current pandemic.
There was a report yesterday of serious numbers (40%?) of healthcare workers in London refusing to be vaccinated, with those from ethnic minorities a larger than expected group. How does one deal with a situation like that in a free country, can we insist they need to be vaccinated in order to work?
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
More selfish arguments for sending vaccines overseas might include:- - increasing British influence or soft power - stopping the developing world becoming reliant on Russia or China - slowing the evolution of new, more dangerous variants in unvaccinated populations - allowing British holidaymakers, influencers and business people to travel - reopening export markets - reopening British borders (if we ever get round to closing them).
We're paying for hundreds of millions of doses to go overseas.
What there is no reason to do is to not vaccinate our own domestic population. We need to do both. Finish the job in the UK and send hundreds of millions overseas.
Or do you think cancelling the hundreds of millions going overseas, cancelling the vaccine rollout here, sending our domestic rollout overseas instead and continuing to have domestic restrictions here so we can't afford the hundreds of millions of doses for abroad is a better solution?
I agree with you.
It is nothing to do with morality. It is the rational thing to do and also politically wise.
Morality is to do with how you feel about something. There is no basis for agreement on morality except feeling the same way about something.
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
It absolutely should not make us feel at all uncomfortable.
The first thing the UK should do is to look after ourselves. The first thing India and Yemen and Africa and anywhere else should do is look after themselves. Yemen won't be sending aid to the UK if we don't look after ourselves.
If Yemen aren't capable of looking after themselves and we are capable of helping them as well as ourselves, then there is a moral case to make that we should do both. But its not either/or, it is both.
If ever we choose to cease to look after ourselves, then before very long we won't be able to look after Yemen or anyone else either - and who does that help?
The key word there is "ourselves".
What logically makes ourselves = British, as opposed to considering everyone on the planet part of ourselves?
Now, I don't disagree with receiving my vaccination before a South African grandma. I've long argued in favour of expensive safety measures on British railways, etc.
But I am opposed to nationalism. My ideal is to value all lives equally, and I see it as morally wrong to do otherwise. Perhaps if we had spent the past several decades valuing the lives of the people of Yemen as highly as our own they would now be able to manufacture their own vaccines, instead of starving while dodging British munitions dropping from Saudi-piloted planes?
Democracy.
Nationalism is a good thing, not a bad one. The ultimate opposite of nationalism isn't internationalism, it is imperialism.
Does the South African Grandma pay taxes to our exchequer? Does she receive a pension from our exchequer? Does she vote in our elections, have a local MP, get served by the NHS?
How do we stop the Saudis from dropping munitions? They're their own country. Unless you want to subjugate them as part of a reinvented British Empire it isn't our choice.
I know the government have denied that the DiT "go set up in Europe" advice is government policy, but it is the only practical way around anti-trade deal. As this cheese manufacturer notes, its financially impossible to continue to export individual products. But set up an EU subsidiary, send a load of jobs over there, and suddenly you can export in bulk to yourself and then sell the products on.
Yes, the reverse is also happening. Small companies being set up to allow (one example I was given) a French cheese company to continue to supply its Tesco contract. What fun! These aren't "the market adjusting" examples, these are the border no longer functions properly examples.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
I knew I could rely on you, happy to provide your stalker fix now Malc has been banned.
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
"stalker fix"? Sorry to break it to you mate, but really - nobody gives a shiny shit about you.
Thanks for making the effort to tell me that. Looking forward to you getting back to some strong English Sparkling Wine content.
Two of our younger grandchildren attend their Junior School, as both of their parents are keyworkers.
I was talking to their mother yesterday who said they are considering home schooling them, due to the social media abuse the parents of the children are receiving from parents of the children who are not entitled to go to their school
Apparently it is very upsetting and creating a divide between the two groups of parents, with considerable resentment
This is another reason for the schools to return as soon as possible, and it would be interesting to hear comments from the teachers on this forum
Completely agree. It`s an issue that can only endure in the very short term. There is a feeling - just a feeling - that the key worker children are currently "enjoying" an advantage.
Are the schools actually teaching the key worker children, or are they simply providing a babysitting service? Most reports seem to suggest the latter.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
I knew I could rely on you, happy to provide your stalker fix now Malc has been banned.
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
My old dad's best mate at work, who regularly called to see him when he was Ill, was Scottish. He and everyone called him Jock. Even Jock called him self Jock. That well known rotund dart player was known by all, including himself, as Jocky Wilson. I remember in the Gulf War a Scottish private laughing off a BBC suggestion about the dangers of the Iraq Republican Guard. "They have not come up against the Royal Jocks yet!" he said.
While "swimming in vaccines" (coined by @MaxPB in the first instance IIRC) is I believe an apt and accurate description of our (the developed world's) likely position later in the year can we please cease using the phrase "swimming in vaccines".
The health professionals who are vaccine refuseniks worry me for the demonstration effect. Years ago a well known haemotologist told our Spanish class when we were discussing flu that she would never get the vaccine, but would rely on others to generate herd immunity by doing so. Other members of the class (all retirees) took this expert's word seriously and resolved to follow her example. There seems to be an element of this attitude by some health workers in the current pandemic.
There was a report yesterday of serious numbers (40%?) of healthcare workers in London refusing to be vaccinated, with those from ethnic minorities a larger than expected group. How does one deal with a situation like that in a free country, can we insist they need to be vaccinated in order to work?
I worry about healthcare workers who question a vaccine...what do they think about all the other drugs they administer on a daily basis? They can read all the scientific literature about this and they still say not for me...
They're doing whatever they think they can do to slow our programme down. It's a clear attempt to try and sow seeds of doubt among UK citizens, unfortunately for them it's not going to work. I think by now every single person in the country has had at least 1 parent or grandparent that's had their first dose and knows there's no danger.
Two of our younger grandchildren attend their Junior School, as both of their parents are keyworkers.
I was talking to their mother yesterday who said they are considering home schooling them, due to the social media abuse the parents of the children are receiving from parents of the children who are not entitled to go to their school
Apparently it is very upsetting and creating a divide between the two groups of parents, with considerable resentment
This is another reason for the schools to return as soon as possible, and it would be interesting to hear comments from the teachers on this forum
Completely agree. It`s an issue that can only endure in the very short term. There is a feeling - just a feeling - that the key worker children are currently "enjoying" an advantage.
Are the schools actually teaching the key worker children, or are they simply providing a babysitting service? Most reports seem to suggest the latter.
I agree. The latter. That`s why I wrote "just a feeling".
I have to do my day job rather than argue with people who equate replying to a post on a message board with "stalking" but I leave you with Doug Seal's Overly Optimistic Graph of the Day - Worldometers' Global Case Count
Well at the rate they are going, it certainly will be....and the Dutch seem to be running it wearing a giant Rhino outfit.
This whole idea of it being a marathon is bullshit. It's a sprint all the way. People who say it are covering up for rubbish schemes or terrible purchasing and capacity.
In the UK it will take months. In eg India it will take a couple of years.
It is a marathon.
Missed a bit:
In the UK it will take months. In eg India it will take a couple of years.
In the EU it will take some time in between.
Because terminal incompetents like von der Leyen trying on every outfit in fig-leaf shop in search of a backside-cover, whilst trying to turn it into a (now-failed) EU show-pony demonstration, and the likes of Mr Macron willing to leverage fruitloopery.
It is a .. er .. sprinted marathon.
The EC flailings remind me of a (probably aprocryphal) story of punk concerts, where they employed somebody to punch on the nose the person who happened to be sitting next to them at the bar .. just to create a ruckus.
That is what von der Leyen has been doing, in the hope of distracting from her naked-emperor status.
Two of our younger grandchildren attend their Junior School, as both of their parents are keyworkers.
I was talking to their mother yesterday who said they are considering home schooling them, due to the social media abuse the parents of the children are receiving from parents of the children who are not entitled to go to their school
Apparently it is very upsetting and creating a divide between the two groups of parents, with considerable resentment
This is another reason for the schools to return as soon as possible, and it would be interesting to hear comments from the teachers on this forum
It's thanks to Mrs Starmer that their children are still at school.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Well, the current response (I would say it has cross party support) is
- Spend a lot of money on making and distributing vaccines in the UK - Spend a lot of money on the COVAX program to make and distribute vaccines world wide.
If anyone advocates more effort on vaccines for the rest of the world, the sensible thing to do is to put more into COVAX.
"...so that politicians can get kudos from some WHO bureaucrats."
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
More selfish arguments for sending vaccines overseas might include:- - increasing British influence or soft power - stopping the developing world becoming reliant on Russia or China - slowing the evolution of new, more dangerous variants in unvaccinated populations - allowing British holidaymakers, influencers and business people to travel - reopening export markets - reopening British borders (if we ever get round to closing them).
Hence COVAX - which is funding vaccine production around the world.
For those worried about vaccine nationalism, the COVAX effort is genuinely a good answer.
Instead of just helicoptering in aid, made in "The West", it involve building/enhancing the capability to make vaccines on every continent.
Building capability elsewhere might be a good idea but I was looking at selfish or self-interested justifications, so let us reverse your suggestion and add to my list that it supports and develops the British pharmaceutical industry.
Well at the rate they are going, it certainly will be....and the Dutch seem to be running it wearing a giant Rhino outfit.
This whole idea of it being a marathon is bullshit. It's a sprint all the way. People who say it are covering up for rubbish schemes or terrible purchasing and capacity.
In the UK it will take months. In eg India it will take a couple of years.
It is a marathon.
I think in this instance marathon and sprint are inadequate analogies.
Obviously people go as fast as possible in a marathon, but that's not as fast as humans could go, they are constrained by physicality from sprinting like it's the 100m. If the constraints were removed you would sprint a marathon.
So in vaccine terms it takes a long time because of supply complaints and logistics, but remove those and nations will sprint even though that still takes a while.
They're doing whatever they think they can do to slow our programme down. It's a clear attempt to try and sow seeds of doubt among UK citizens, unfortunately for them it's not going to work. I think by now every single person in the country has had at least 1 parent or grandparent that's had their first dose and knows there's no danger.
Their rhetoric and petulance is doing more to undermine confidence in the EU than Britain's actions.
A confident EU would welcome the fact it could learn from other countries to always challenge itself to raise its game.
More ‘why don’t those ungrateful Jocks realise how great the UK is and how awful Sturgeon is’ news. Though it appears a goodly number of non Jocks hold the same view. A Britain united at last!
Why do you persist in referring to your fellow countrymen as “Jocks? Well, actually, I know, it’s what you stereotypically imagine the English do and it fuels your oppression fantasy.
Can you point out the last post in which I did that? I believe digging up old posts is one of your talents.
In any case I have been assured that the term is an affectionate one, a bit of banter between our family of nations. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Just type the word into the search box on PB VF you get the below. You and another prominent Scottish Nationalist use it every other day. No one else does.
I don't know if its an affectionate term or not - that's for you to decide because you (and Carnyx as you will see below) are the only person I come accross who ever uses the term regularly. I do know is that in England it's obsolete. When I was a kid (I'm 47) I didn't read the Dandy (being more of a Whoopee! and Whizzer & Chips man myself) but was obviously aware of it from friends copies - I had literally no clue until I was in my teens that the Jocks were supposed to be from Scotland and the Geordies from Newcastle. Since then, save in the context of passionate outbursts from older relatives during sporting fixtures, I've never heard it used.
I knew I could rely on you, happy to provide your stalker fix now Malc has been banned.
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
My old dad's best mate at work, who regularly called to see him when he was Ill, was Scottish. He and everyone called him Jock. Even Jock called him self Jock. That well known rotund dart player was known by all, including himself, as Jocky Wilson. I remember in the Gulf War a Scottish private laughing off a BBC suggestion about the dangers of the Iraq Republican Guard. "They have not come up against the Royal Jocks yet!" he said.
Personally I don't mind being called a Brit.
As you suggest there are still Scots who call themselves Jock and the expression ‘we’re all Jock Tamson’s bairns’ is pretty common. However the PB brains trust (Scotch section) has made a ruling.
Comments
Imagine a Boris Johnson, who had caused the Olympics to collapse when Mayor of London, along with the entire of TfL, say.
And got a promotion on the back of that.
Frankly if we never saw him again it would be too soon. Hateful vile man - what he published over Hillsborough I would never forgive him or the Sun for - using the word Jocks in a stupid online video is frankly nothing compared to that.
The man should have zero credibility and never be taken seriously by anyone.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1356530822799622146
In the longer run, the damage done to some survivors (Long Covid) may end up to be the longest term public health problem coming out of this. We talk about "people with underlying conditions" but in the after-covid era, that number will be considerably higher than it was in the before-covid era (and it was already a lot higher than people seem to think when they discuss it).
Two of our younger grandchildren attend their Junior School, as both of their parents are keyworkers.
I was talking to their mother yesterday who said they are considering home schooling them, due to the social media abuse the parents of the children are receiving from parents of the children who are not entitled to go to their school
Apparently it is very upsetting and creating a divide between the two groups of parents, with considerable resentment
This is another reason for the schools to return as soon as possible, and it would be interesting to hear comments from the teachers on this forum
Let's see how February plays out....
However, we have contracted supply of over 400m doses. In April the UK and US are going to be swimming in vaccines. We will be receiving them from four different suppliers at a rate of around 6-9m doses per week and if we elect to use all four we will need to set up a third specialised logistics chain for Moderna which needs refrigeration at -28 degrees but can't be stored in the -70 degrees fridges being used for the Pfizer vaccine. The Novavax and AZ vaccines are compatible wrt their logistics and we could use them both at the same time quite easily.
By around June we will have done 60m injections IMO and be able to do 25m per month meaning by the end of July it will all be done and we will hopefully have achieved a good level of herd immunity in the adult population.
One major argument for holding back our Moderna doses is that they are running a trial for under 18s which is set to report back soon. 17m doses of it would be more than enough to run an under 18s scheme in August and September to ensure the school year isn't disrupted.
Additionally I think the government may ask for our J&J doses to be modified to tackle the various mutations in circulation before taking delivery.
So where does that leave us wrt spare doses? I don't think we're going to do it until June once everyone has been offered their first dose. The political uproar of giving vaccines doses to other countries while there are people here who haven't had their first jab would be massive. However, that doesn't preclude the UK allowing for UK manufacturing capacity to be used to fulfill other countries contracts before all 100m of our AZ doses or 60m Novavax doses are delivered. I imagine that's where the flexibility will be from April onwards because at full capacity between just AZ and Novavax we could receive 35m doses per month from domestic manufacturing, it's highly unlikely we'll have the capacity to use it all.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/01/mitch-mcconnell-conspiracy-theories-cancer-marjorie-taylor-greene
I couldn’t give a fuck who uses the term Jock, it just entertains me the number of people who get wound up about me using it, and Scotch of course. If I had a pound for every time someone or other lumbers on to tell me it refers to whisky, I’d have enough to buy a bottle of decent malt.
This is the sort of absurd strawman argument that immediately provokes me into taking the contrary position.
The argument for sending vaccines overseas, to protect the vulnerable and healthcare workers, is perfectly logical and moral and has nothing to do with bureaucrats.
We can see that the argument of saving more lives vaccinating the vulnerable abroad than our young is not one that will win the day, however, because we always value the lives of people in Britain more highly than those overseas.
Look at the money we spend on rail safety in the UK, which would save more lives if spent on Indian railways. Look at the money I hope we will spend on the post-Grenfell cladding issue, which would save more lives if spent on housing in Africa. Look at the money spent on free school meals, which would save more lives if spent on food aid for the hungry in Yemen.
So we will vaccinate the people of Britain first, and this will be because we value the lives of British people more highly than those elsewhere in the world. This should make us feel a bit uncomfortable, and we should seek in general to include the rest of the world within the group of people that we care about, and are willing to inconvenience ourselves to help.
But the way we will do that now is by ensuring that the vaccine shortage ends as soon as possible, so the issue of prioritization no longer arises.
On the 400m - we`ll need vaccines every year presumably. At least for a few years. Will they "keep"?
I suspect he would have been fired were it not for the fact he was a former editor and the Liverpool comments which would be rather difficult to fire him over.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/
If it is possible for a pub or restaurant not just to be open (currently they're all closed afterall), but to be open normally with no social distancing measures. If we are eg able to safely go to a packed, crowded bar and have over a hundred people stood standing room only shoulder to shoulder watching Liverpool vs Manchester United then the pandemic is under control - if we can not, it is not.
Yes defeating the virus globally is necessary but that isn't done by sending what is internationally a tiny number of doses overseas, but to us a dramatic number of doses. Again 7 million doses would allow jabs for over 10% of our population but not even 0.1% of global population - you are an innumerate fool if you think vaccinating the world is possible at the expense of not vaccinating ourselves.
It isn't either/or we need to do both and the best way to do both is to finish the job here and then be able to work properly and afford to pay for the rest of the world. We don't need to send a few million doses that would let us finish the job here overseas, we need to finish the job here and send hundreds of millions of doses overseas.
Ponder endlessly on why we are a week at most behind on vaccines but not a care as to why we are 60% of the death rate, you would almost think it is deliberate. Selective memory is a wonderful thing.
That Brussels was willing to give the UK a far less generous deal over SPS checks than it gave New Zealand was indicative of the EU’s new attitude towards the UK, which it sees as a geographically proximate economic competitor. Yet this insistence on relatively stringent checks between the UK and EU also extends to Britain and Northern Ireland, because the latter remains in the EU’s single market for goods.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/02/vaccine-rows-spats-eu-uk-competitor
https://twitter.com/scotnational/status/1356519474187427840?s=21
I'm sure someone else has made this point by now, but never mind. And, @Cyclefree, thanks for the header.
Good morning, everyone.
They either need to dump a major chunk of the party - all the way to Senate and Congress - or become, full on, the party of QAnon as the sane people leave.
I am increasingly frustrated by the willingness of so many to deny others, grass neighours up, argue etc. Sure, things are tough right now. But should we be making them tougher by getting angry all the time? I say no.
My view on vaccines is that they're like the oxygen masks that pop down in front of you on an aeroplane in an emergency: you should put on yours and check it's working properly, before helping others.
It's only with our domestic population protected, and therefore our economy recovering, that we'll have the strength and resources to help the rest of the world get on top of it.
Otherwise we're gambling on everything or nothing, and we might still be 2-3 years away from total global suppression, with all the political, civil and social challenges and upheavals that might pose in the meantime.
The first thing the UK should do is to look after ourselves. The first thing India and Yemen and Africa and anywhere else should do is look after themselves. Yemen won't be sending aid to the UK if we don't look after ourselves.
If Yemen aren't capable of looking after themselves and we are capable of helping them as well as ourselves, then there is a moral case to make that we should do both. But its not either/or, it is both.
If ever we choose to cease to look after ourselves, then before very long we won't be able to look after Yemen or anyone else either - and who does that help?
And the Lefty so called 'internationalist' argument to give away our resources to the world is exposed when we look at the idea of reducing safety on our railways spend it on Indian railways.
In any event we give billions on foreign aid as it is.
Looking forward to you getting back to some strong English Sparkling Wine content.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-africa/
When we've dealt with our own lot, we can turn our attention to the needy overseas and I hope we will, but until then we're entitled to maximise our own use and frankly it would be wrong to do otherwise.
I suspect that will be the Government's view and there is no reason it should not have widespread support.
Here is Kelvin MacKenzie on the Welsh.
"We’re going to stop the Welsh, who absolutely have the worst NHS of all the four nations, coming to England in order to get treatment.’ “They can bugger off. They can die in their own hospitals rather than die in ours.”
This kind of stuff is just pure hate speech, but Kelvin knows what he is doing.
There is a ready audience for ... err ... shockjocks.
Just another sad situation to add to so many others caused by covid
What makes it even more annoying is that, in most cases, if it was the UK that needed this sort of help and other countries were being asked to help, we would be hearing from the same people why the UK shouldn't be helped (although to be fair there is a logic to that from their view of the world, namely the UK is uniquely "undeserving" and so the population would get what it deserved).
It all comes down to self-loathing. Orwell - as usual - was bang on the money.
One other point. These countries wanted independence and pushed for it. If you want that, then you have to take responsibility for yourself. Why should the UK be paying for the Indian Railways when India is sending rockets into space?
- increasing British influence or soft power
- stopping the developing world becoming reliant on Russia or China
- slowing the evolution of new, more dangerous variants in unvaccinated populations
- allowing British holidaymakers, influencers and business people to travel
- reopening export markets
- reopening British borders (if we ever get round to closing them).
Well at the rate they are going, it certainly will be....and the Dutch seem to be running it wearing a giant Rhino outfit.
What there is no reason to do is to not vaccinate our own domestic population. We need to do both. Finish the job in the UK and send hundreds of millions overseas.
Or do you think cancelling the hundreds of millions going overseas, cancelling the vaccine rollout here, sending our domestic rollout overseas instead and continuing to have domestic restrictions here so we can't afford the hundreds of millions of doses for abroad is a better solution?
For those worried about vaccine nationalism, the COVAX effort is genuinely a good answer.
Instead of just helicoptering in aid, made in "The West", it involve building/enhancing the capability to make vaccines on every continent.
It is a marathon.
We should be sprinting every single day to get the doses out. Every vaccine that goes out is literally sprinting against death.
A marathon is only over when you finish it. Every single person vaccinated has a level of protection within a fortnight of getting it - their protection doesn't kick in once everyone else is vaccinated.
What logically makes ourselves = British, as opposed to considering everyone on the planet part of ourselves?
Now, I don't disagree with receiving my vaccination before a South African grandma. I've long argued in favour of expensive safety measures on British railways, etc.
But I am opposed to nationalism. My ideal is to value all lives equally, and I see it as morally wrong to do otherwise. Perhaps if we had spent the past several decades valuing the lives of the people of Yemen as highly as our own they would now be able to manufacture their own vaccines, instead of starving while dodging British munitions dropping from Saudi-piloted planes?
First, this shows Trump might have won if he'd not intentionally (and "with malice aforethought") suppressed his own vote by telling supporters not to vote by post, and that the Democrats would steal the election anyway.
Second, and with a nod to any Scottish referendum, the oft-touted boycotting of polls is a damn stupid tactic because it never works. It guarantees defeat and the victors never declare the vote to have been invalid on turnout grounds.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
It should be treated like a sprint because there's no such thing as getting tired.
Younger people do die, albeit rarely, and long-Covid in the younger is a danger. I cannot believe that the government would risk giving away or selling the fruits of its vaccine procurement programme in the knowledge that UK citizens will die or incur long-Covid because their vaccines had been given away. Not going to happen.
Not just a UK problem either.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/01/02/large-numbers-of-health-care-and-frontline-workers-are-refusing-covid-19-vaccine/
It is nothing to do with morality.
It is the rational thing to do and also politically wise.
Morality is to do with how you feel about something. There is no basis for agreement on morality except feeling the same way about something.
Nationalism is a good thing, not a bad one. The ultimate opposite of nationalism isn't internationalism, it is imperialism.
Does the South African Grandma pay taxes to our exchequer? Does she receive a pension from our exchequer? Does she vote in our elections, have a local MP, get served by the NHS?
How do we stop the Saudis from dropping munitions? They're their own country. Unless you want to subjugate them as part of a reinvented British Empire it isn't our choice.
Yes, the reverse is also happening. Small companies being set up to allow (one example I was given) a French cheese company to continue to supply its Tesco contract. What fun! These aren't "the market adjusting" examples, these are the border no longer functions properly examples.
I remember in the Gulf War a Scottish private laughing off a BBC suggestion about the dangers of the Iraq Republican Guard. "They have not come up against the Royal Jocks yet!" he said.
Personally I don't mind being called a Brit.
While "swimming in vaccines" (coined by @MaxPB in the first instance IIRC) is I believe an apt and accurate description of our (the developed world's) likely position later in the year can we please cease using the phrase "swimming in vaccines".
With thanks.
I worry about healthcare workers who question a vaccine...what do they think about all the other drugs they administer on a daily basis? They can read all the scientific literature about this and they still say not for me...
Being honest the only thing the interviews should be asking anyone who comes up with such an answer or statement is the single question. How?
followed by more detail?
Vaccine rollout is neither marathon nor sprint, it's a relay.
In the UK it will take months. In eg India it will take a couple of years.
In the EU it will take some time in between.
Because terminal incompetents like von der Leyen trying on every outfit in fig-leaf shop in search of a backside-cover, whilst trying to turn it into a (now-failed) EU show-pony demonstration, and the likes of Mr Macron willing to leverage fruitloopery.
It is a .. er .. sprinted marathon.
The EC flailings remind me of a (probably aprocryphal) story of punk concerts, where they employed somebody to punch on the nose the person who happened to be sitting next to them at the bar .. just to create a ruckus.
That is what von der Leyen has been doing, in the hope of distracting from her naked-emperor status.
(Am I right she just threw a minion to the dogs?)
- Spend a lot of money on making and distributing vaccines in the UK
- Spend a lot of money on the COVAX program to make and distribute vaccines world wide.
If anyone advocates more effort on vaccines for the rest of the world, the sensible thing to do is to put more into COVAX.
Obviously people go as fast as possible in a marathon, but that's not as fast as humans could go, they are constrained by physicality from sprinting like it's the 100m. If the constraints were removed you would sprint a marathon.
So in vaccine terms it takes a long time because of supply complaints and logistics, but remove those and nations will sprint even though that still takes a while.
A confident EU would welcome the fact it could learn from other countries to always challenge itself to raise its game.
However the PB brains trust (Scotch section) has made a ruling.