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.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if that poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
(i) The virus is only under control once its eliminated and all restrictions are lifted, (ii) That's not being said by anyone. The UK has done a lot of thinking about the global effort and funding and developing Covax.
There is no right balance here. The right balance is to eradicate Covid - in the UK obviously is top priority and in the world's best interests too given we are aiding the world, then the world.
To stop vaccinating domestically those who need the vaccine, in order to send a piddly number of vaccines to the rest of the world, would be like saying "we should abolish Universal Credit completely, not replace it with anything, because the rest of the world has worse poverty". Its not poverty or aid, its both, starting at home.
Would you deny a doctor a vaccine to give it to a patient instead? The effort of vaccinating the world is aided by having the UK running at 100%.
The interesting thing about this is the writer is still obviously attached to the arguments that he found persuasive in 2014 (and that are still the main corroded ammo in the current lot's locker) but he realises that they've been made valueless by Brexit and the kakocracy overseeing it. Still, I'm sure a few streets named after VC winners and reclaiming the idea that the UK was an imperialist enterprise from the wokies should get him back onside.
"But there are audible strains in Tory constitutional politics, too. Just as the leading edge of Brexit nationalism is increasingly hostile to the unionist project of devolution, Conservatives show growing impatience with Best of Both Worlds thinking. The fact things work differently and unevenly across the “four nations” was meant to be the happy point of devolution, though now it is increasingly seen as an insult to British unity and largesse.
This tetchiness is even voiced by the self-styled “Minister for the Union”. Only weeks after privately condemning devolution as a “disaster”, the Prime Minister was reported to claim “that there would not have been a single Covid-19 vaccine in Scotland if it were up to Nicola Sturgeon’s party”. His meaning, a surrogate explained, was that size matters: “the UK is a major country, we’ve got sufficient clout to get the vaccines rolled out”. A fair point, but it remains notable that Johnson’s disdain for the SNP is seldom expressed in a unionist vocabulary, even when finessed and glossed by more tactful communicators. Indeed, it’s difficult to name a leading UK politician who gives the impression of viewing Scotland’s democracy as a cherished part of the British constitutional order, rather than a tiresome subfolder of the “major” state-nation."
Having a devolved Government in Scotland, not just committed to the dissolution of the UK, but determined to have it now (referendum by Christmas ffs), and willing to turn the resources of the state and powers of the state against it, is hardly a 'happy point' of 'things working differently and unevenly'.
A Government that instead of spending monies meant to ease the process of Brexit to facilitate fast and efficient veterinary checks on exported fish, spends money on adverts condemning Brexit and advocating independence as the remedy, is not 'working differently and unevenly', it is abandoning responsible Government in favour of behaving as a pressure group.
The interesting thing about this is the writer is still obviously attached to the arguments that he found persuasive in 2014 (and that are still the main corroded ammo in the current lot's locker) but he realises that they've been made valueless by Brexit and the kakocracy overseeing it. Still, I'm sure a few streets named after VC winners and reclaiming the idea that the UK was an imperialist enterprise from the wokies should get him back onside.
The interesting thing about this is the writer is still obviously attached to the arguments that he found persuasive in 2014 (and that are still the main corroded ammo in the current lot's locker) but he realises that they've been made valueless by Brexit and the kakocracy overseeing it. Still, I'm sure a few streets named after VC winners and reclaiming the idea that the UK was an imperialist enterprise from the wokies should get him back onside.
"But there are audible strains in Tory constitutional politics, too. Just as the leading edge of Brexit nationalism is increasingly hostile to the unionist project of devolution, Conservatives show growing impatience with Best of Both Worlds thinking. The fact things work differently and unevenly across the “four nations” was meant to be the happy point of devolution, though now it is increasingly seen as an insult to British unity and largesse.
This tetchiness is even voiced by the self-styled “Minister for the Union”. Only weeks after privately condemning devolution as a “disaster”, the Prime Minister was reported to claim “that there would not have been a single Covid-19 vaccine in Scotland if it were up to Nicola Sturgeon’s party”. His meaning, a surrogate explained, was that size matters: “the UK is a major country, we’ve got sufficient clout to get the vaccines rolled out”. A fair point, but it remains notable that Johnson’s disdain for the SNP is seldom expressed in a unionist vocabulary, even when finessed and glossed by more tactful communicators. Indeed, it’s difficult to name a leading UK politician who gives the impression of viewing Scotland’s democracy as a cherished part of the British constitutional order, rather than a tiresome subfolder of the “major” state-nation."
Having a devolved Government in Scotland, not just committed to the dissolution of the UK, but determined to have it now (referendum by Christmas ffs), and willing to turn the resources of the state and powers of the state against it, is hardly a 'happy point' of 'things working differently and unevenly'.
A Government that instead of spending monies meant to ease the process of Brexit to facilitate fast and efficient veterinary checks on exported fish, spends money on adverts condemning Brexit and advocating independence as the remedy, is not 'working differently and unevenly', it is abandoning responsible Government in favour of behaving as a pressure group.
Vets? What vets are to be hired instantly? And why, when the London administration wouldn't say what was needed? Or even knew if anything would ne needed?
The interesting thing about this is the writer is still obviously attached to the arguments that he found persuasive in 2014 (and that are still the main corroded ammo in the current lot's locker) but he realises that they've been made valueless by Brexit and the kakocracy overseeing it. Still, I'm sure a few streets named after VC winners and reclaiming the idea that the UK was an imperialist enterprise from the wokies should get him back onside.
John Ashworth - The extra testing to combat the South African variant is welcome, he says, but he suggests it should go further because people go “beyond their postcode boundaries”.
The government could test every person in the country every day and Labour would say why aren't we testing people's pets ..
Oh, and which of us didn't predict exactly this - weeks back?
The EU seem to only just be waking up to the fact there are two communities in Northern Ireland to worry about.
I don't recall the EU placing an intra-UK border down the Irish Sea. They had a proposal to get around the whole issue which was rejected massively and repeatedly by the 2017 parliament.
Because the 2017 solution was even worse. The NI Protocol subjugating NI to rules they don't vote for is bad and the solution is to find a way out of that mess for NI.
Instead the 2017 solution was to apply the bad protocol for NI to the entire UK simultaneously. That's worse.
That's like saying the solution for one person being sick is to make everyone sick.
GB is out of the Protocol now, good, so now we need to find a way to extract NI out of it too.
And how do we do that? We're back to either invent the world's first digital customs border, or the GFA collapses and potentially the peace. The Intra-Irish border was always the unsquareable circle. If UK was to diverge from the EU and the Irish border must remain open, then NI could no longer be a full part of the UK.
Easy.
If those are the choices then the option is obvious: We invent the world's first digital customs border.
Because the alternative: The GFA collapses and potentially the peace is worse.
That should have been the obvious solution all along, but regrettably years were wasted with the idea of keeping the UK in the EU's customs border. Thankfully that idea was killed before birth. So now we have the Protocol, which reality is showing isn't viable.
The pressure now is where it always should have been. Ireland isn't going to join the UK, the UK isn't going to join the UK, we want peace - Once you've eliminated the impossible the only option left, however improbable, is the solution. A digital system is all that is left.
Trusted traders, self-declarations and a mutual recognition of SPS rather than demanding SPS checks be done. Do that etc and its job done.
You do know that an digital border is an impossible dream created by people like Redwood who haven't got a clue where the issues / complexities begin let alone how big those complexities are.
Its about as impossible as working from home was impossible. Necessity is the mother of invention.
There were only ever 4 viable solutions.
The UK doesn't leave the EU afterall.
The UK and EU find a workable solution.
Violence.
Turn a blind eye and allow trade to flow without the checks and without impediment.
The EU and their fans like your good self thought that by denying (2) and leaving (3) as horrific would force us down the route of (1), since apparently (4) was also unthinkable. Thankfully that's been put paid to now, the UK is out.
So now it is (2), (3) or (4) that are the only options left. So either you choose violence - or you do whatever it takes to prevent it. Whatever it takes will either mean no solution whatsoever and there's no checks and the market has a big gaping hole to enter, or it will entail a digital solution.
The EU seemed to be under a misapprehension the only violent people to worry about in NI were the Nationalists. Them telling their people not to go to work today reveals otherwise. A viable alternative solution has to be found - and that is going to be bloody close to what Redwood etc were always suggesting. It doesn't matter how complex they are, a way needs to be found to get through those complexities if you want peace - peace is complex. NI is complex.
It isn't our departure from the EU that is the problem, its our departure from the EEA. Yes, "necessity is the mother of invention". But it is a peculiar piece of English exceptionalism to surmise that the reason this hasn't yet been invented is because we haven't needed it. There are plenty of other borders who would benefit if such a thing existed - presumably then its only the English who can create it because the rest of the world aren't smart enough?
The UK and EU could have found a workable solution. The problem was that we rejected every single one of the options as not being "proper" Brexit. Leaving the European Union is Brexit. What we do afterwards doesn't change that we have left.
The reality of your position Philip and that of so many Conservative and Unionist MPs is that the Union can go hang in exchange for the prize.
You know I'm a nationalist not a unionist don't you?
It doesn't matter whether you dislike us having left the EEA or not anymore. Its done. The egg is broken and there's no putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.
You're approaching the whole thing backwards. You want to determine what the solution is and then choose a form of Brexit to match that. No, we choose a form of Brext (so having got a "proper" Brexit now) and now we need to find the workable solution that works with that.
It doesn't matter if no solution works yet. Invent one. Needs must and all that.
Not every set of equations has a solution. You can't decrease the total entropy in a closed system, whatever you try. The boys in my A Level class who really wanted a hot date with Taylor Swift didn't get one.
Just because something is desired doesn't mean it has to happen. Necessity is the mother of invention- sure. But you also need the father of realistic possibility.
If it turns out that all those other countries managing trade across a land border are right, and that right now the sort of border you would like can't be made to happen... What then?
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
"Scotland is irrelevant to Northern Island" is the kind of hard hitting, clear headed political analysis I come here for.
On Friday when after Article 16 was revoked and before the European Commission retreated, when it was roundly criticised by the British Government, the Irish Government, the NI First Minister, Tories, Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Irish parties, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance . . . did the SNP have anything to say on the matter?
Yes, they did actually.
I think a lot of us missed that - what did they say and also when did they say it?
OK.
Bang to rights - can't find it.
I may have got SNP muddled up with Michael Gove's "Brussels made a mistake" from Saturday.
It is Johnson's and Gove's crap deal that caused the issue, why should SNP take anything to do with their failures.
One of the things I find most amazing of the long list of amazingly stupid things the EU is doing in this whole vaccine business is that they don't even seem to be thinking a few weeks ahead on the politics. I get why they might want to blame AZ/the Brits/the MHRA etc as a cheap political point to distract attention from their own failings, but how the hell do they expect that to continue working as the UK continues to roll out and the effect of the vaccines on the death and hospitalisation figures begins to come through? They are going to look damned silly when it turns out that what they characterise as the our 'risky' approach was much more prudent than theirs.
It's panic. I have seen just this sort of behaviour in other organisations.
They need the Cyclefree Crisis Management Team in charge. 😉
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.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
I don't think this is right at all. Sure the elite Brexit supporters want free trade but the Brexit core in the red wall wants protectionism. They want their jobs protected and manufacturing brought back to the UK.
We aren't going to have protectionism.
It's overly simplistic for you and HYUFD to say the red wall wants protectionism or they want a halt to migration.
People want to be listened to, respected and have their lives improve. How that happens isn't as significant as that it does. Most people aren't political extremist obsessives one way or another.
Spot on.
The debate has been wrecked by the myth that there are 17 million extremists in the UK, all voting Brexit. Nearly all Remain and Leave voters are moderates.
Nearly all Leave voters are moderates. Almost a 5th of Leave voters are strong supporters of Donald Trump. Can you square that circle?
Conifer update: I cleared the snow off them at lunchtime. No broken branches, but they look like they need a shot of Viagra-spiked fertiliser to bring them back to their former glory!
Now just a bit of drizzle falling.
Local news showed quite a bit of travel disruption across Yorkshire.
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.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
I don't think this is right at all. Sure the elite Brexit supporters want free trade but the Brexit core in the red wall wants protectionism. They want their jobs protected and manufacturing brought back to the UK.
We aren't going to have protectionism.
It's overly simplistic for you and HYUFD to say the red wall wants protectionism or they want a halt to migration.
People want to be listened to, respected and have their lives improve. How that happens isn't as significant as that it does. Most people aren't political extremist obsessives one way or another.
Spot on.
The debate has been wrecked by the myth that there are 17 million extremists in the UK, all voting Brexit. Nearly all Remain and Leave voters are moderates.
Nearly all Leave voters are moderates. Almost a 5th of Leave voters are strong supporters of Donald Trump. Can you square that circle?
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.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Conifer update: I cleared the snow off them at lunchtime. No broken branches, but they look like they need a shot of Viagra-spiked fertiliser to bring them back to their former glory!
Now just a bit of drizzle falling.
Local news showed quite a bit of travel disruption across Yorkshire.
Sorry to report, they may not fully recover - I have a couple of rather sorry specimens still from the Beast in the East. May have to bite the bullet and take them down.
They are nearly as bad as Andrew Wakefield and Richard Horton.
Actually they deserve to be in the same circle of hell.
I am still totally confused how Wakefield has managed to hook up with Elle MacPherson.
Hi nice to meet you, I am that totally non descript bloke whose only claim to fame is beung involved with a massive vaccination scandal....i know you have the pick of the whole room, but would you like to go out sometime.
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
"Scotland is irrelevant to Northern Island" is the kind of hard hitting, clear headed political analysis I come here for.
On Friday when after Article 16 was revoked and before the European Commission retreated, when it was roundly criticised by the British Government, the Irish Government, the NI First Minister, Tories, Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Irish parties, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance . . . did the SNP have anything to say on the matter?
Yes, they did actually.
I think a lot of us missed that - what did they say and also when did they say it?
OK.
Bang to rights - can't find it.
I may have got SNP muddled up with Michael Gove's "Brussels made a mistake" from Saturday.
It is Johnson's and Gove's crap deal that caused the issue, why should SNP take anything to do with their failures.
Actually it might be better for you to be in EU
You might be first rather than last in that group in terms of vaccine roll out.
The interesting thing about this is the writer is still obviously attached to the arguments that he found persuasive in 2014 (and that are still the main corroded ammo in the current lot's locker) but he realises that they've been made valueless by Brexit and the kakocracy overseeing it. Still, I'm sure a few streets named after VC winners and reclaiming the idea that the UK was an imperialist enterprise from the wokies should get him back onside.
One of the things I find most amazing of the long list of amazingly stupid things the EU is doing in this whole vaccine business is that they don't even seem to be thinking a few weeks ahead on the politics. I get why they might want to blame AZ/the Brits/the MHRA etc as a cheap political point to distract attention from their own failings, but how the hell do they expect that to continue working as the UK continues to roll out and the effect of the vaccines on the death and hospitalisation figures begins to come through? They are going to look damned silly when it turns out that what they characterise as the our 'risky' approach was much more prudent than theirs.
It's panic. I have seen just this sort of behaviour in other organisations.
They need the Cyclefree Crisis Management Team in charge. 😉
One of the worlds definitely renewable resources (we will never run out of this) -
People who, when in a hole, put down the spade and fire up Bagger 288
One of the things I find most amazing of the long list of amazingly stupid things the EU is doing in this whole vaccine business is that they don't even seem to be thinking a few weeks ahead on the politics. I get why they might want to blame AZ/the Brits/the MHRA etc as a cheap political point to distract attention from their own failings, but how the hell do they expect that to continue working as the UK continues to roll out and the effect of the vaccines on the death and hospitalisation figures begins to come through? They are going to look damned silly when it turns out that what they characterise as the our 'risky' approach was much more prudent than theirs.
It's panic. I have seen just this sort of behaviour in other organisations.
They need the Cyclefree Crisis Management Team in charge. 😉
I'd advise getting paid up front.
The weird thing about the EU's panicked, populist willy waving is they've seen the other side of it so know the benefits of keeping calm yet still gave in to dark impulses.
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
"Scotland is irrelevant to Northern Island" is the kind of hard hitting, clear headed political analysis I come here for.
On Friday when after Article 16 was revoked and before the European Commission retreated, when it was roundly criticised by the British Government, the Irish Government, the NI First Minister, Tories, Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Irish parties, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance . . . did the SNP have anything to say on the matter?
Yes, they did actually.
I think a lot of us missed that - what did they say and also when did they say it?
OK.
Bang to rights - can't find it.
I may have got SNP muddled up with Michael Gove's "Brussels made a mistake" from Saturday.
For some strange reason the SNP stayed silent
(Puts yellow plaque on wall as memorial of occasion)
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Total Total 280,513 1,596 282,109 East Of England 33,951 306 34,257 London 38,629 379 39,008 Midlands 57,441 106 57,547 North East And Yorkshire 35,424 247 35,671 North West 37,796 166 37,962 South East 46,254 254 46,508 South West 29,478 132 29,610
Good thing the Oxford team is already working on updating the current vaccine to beat that mutation in time for second doses. Our 12 week gap policy could be a huge stroke of luck as people won't need a third jab to protect themselves against it.
Would a modification to the vaccine not require new trials?
It will need a safety trial (and the immune response carefully looked at), but I think it's quite probable that it would then be rapidly approved, rather than running full scale trials.
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.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
John Ashworth - The extra testing to combat the South African variant is welcome, he says, but he suggests it should go further because people go “beyond their postcode boundaries”.
The government could test every person in the country every day and Labour would say why aren't we testing people's pets ..
The local lads with their trousers falling down are usually pretty handy at stopping people wandering across from neighbouring postcodes. Perhaps they could bid for a government contract?
In good time we should be generous with out vaccines (especially with Ireland poorer nations) but only when we've vaccinated enough of our own people to significantly drive down the infection rate and ease the pressure on the NHS.
By about May we should be in a position to start sharing our vaccines hopefully.
This is what I'm saying. The alternative vision - no diversion until we have done everyone and have full domestic normality with near zero covid here and our borders closed to the world - does not appeal to me.
Why not?
Given the world needs billions of doses, not millions of doses; given that getting full normality here means we can send more hundreds of millions of doses to the rest of the world rather than just a couple of million to the rest of the world . . .
. . . why do you want to hurt the rest of the world by not finishing the job here?
It's a speed and priority thing not an either/or. And since you're so fond of absurdly reductive, loaded questions, I will pose YOU one -
Why do you want to hamper the global vaccination effort - and by implication prolong the pandemic and increase the risk of malign mutations - by refusing to release any of our copious stocks and pipeline until we are 100% sorted ourselves even if that takes ages and even then (indeed especially then) we can't open our borders and have to live for years like Vincent Price in The Masque of the Red Death?
I don't want to hamper the global vaccination effort. The UK being fully vaccinated is in the best interests of of the global vaccination effort.
The UK not being fully vaccinated, so the UK isn't fully open domestically, so the UK economy is suppressed, so the UK's supply of global vaccine aid is suppressed hurts not helps the global vaccination effort.
Eight weeks of the UK being fully vaccinated would add £48bn of the UK GDP and add £240mn to the UK's foreign aid budget, let alone anything else we choose to spend. That's enough for us to add 120 million extra doses to global vaccination efforts, more than the amount of doses the UK is going to use domestically.
Why would you deny the rest of the world that aid from us?
We don't have "copious stocks", we are using all the stocks we get in. So that's delusional in thinking the UK can divert some "copious stocks" - any stocks we have should be used.
Re supply, we are not (!) talking about next week or next month. We are talking about the future scenario I painted. I'm a patient person but I have said this a few times now.
The rest of your post is in essence a paean to the long discredited notion of "trickle down" economics. Strictly for free market dogmatists these days.
One of the things I find most amazing of the long list of amazingly stupid things the EU is doing in this whole vaccine business is that they don't even seem to be thinking a few weeks ahead on the politics. I get why they might want to blame AZ/the Brits/the MHRA etc as a cheap political point to distract attention from their own failings, but how the hell do they expect that to continue working as the UK continues to roll out and the effect of the vaccines on the death and hospitalisation figures begins to come through? They are going to look damned silly when it turns out that what they characterise as the our 'risky' approach was much more prudent than theirs.
It's panic. I have seen just this sort of behaviour in other organisations.
They need the Cyclefree Crisis Management Team in charge. 😉
I'd advise getting paid up front.
The weird thing about the EU's panicked, populist willy waving is they've seen the other side of it so know the benefits of keeping calm yet still gave in to dark impulses.
I fall to pieces, absolutely fall to miserable pieces, when I have a series of small to medium urgency tasks. I cannot prioretise. But when there is something huge and urgent on the scales fall away and suddenly I'm like some kind of modern day Hannibal. Then when it's finished I go back to my normal neurotic self.
Yeah but he isn't even like Elon Musk billionaire status or Tom Cruise hot...he is just a random bloke whose only claim to fame is a massive scandal.
Being an antivaxxer can make you rich in America.
This is why Richard Horton should resign and the Lancet be closed.
Wakefield says his analysis was published and reviewed in the Lancet so what he said was true, but the shadowy powers and big pharma got him cancelled for speaking the truth.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
What have they given the world? Apartheid, vuvuzelas, and now this variant.
They need to take a good long hard at themselves.
Biltong on pizza?
I have had a biltong pizza, but slices doesn't work, it needs to be grated.
Lovely country, and lovely peoples who are very welcoming apart from to each other.
I once got stuck in a Transvaal town during a lumberjack festival with nowhere to stay. Some very welcoming neo-nazi Afrikaaners put me up for the night. I had to swap travel stories over a braai with them, in a house decorated with AWB flags etc. Really quite surreal, but I couldn't fault their hospitality.
Guardian: A beekeeper trying to bring 15 million bees into the UK says he has been told they may be seized and burned because of post-Brexit laws.
Patrick Murfet wants to import the baby Italian bees for his Kent business and to help farmers pollinate valuable crops. But new laws that came into effect after the UK left the single market mean bringing bees into the country is banned.
Since the end of the transition period, only queen bees can be imported into Great Britain, rather than colonies and packages of bees. However, confusion over whether bees can be brought in via Northern Ireland has caused a legal headache.
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.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
I don't think this is right at all. Sure the elite Brexit supporters want free trade but the Brexit core in the red wall wants protectionism. They want their jobs protected and manufacturing brought back to the UK.
We aren't going to have protectionism.
It's overly simplistic for you and HYUFD to say the red wall wants protectionism or they want a halt to migration.
People want to be listened to, respected and have their lives improve. How that happens isn't as significant as that it does. Most people aren't political extremist obsessives one way or another.
Spot on.
The debate has been wrecked by the myth that there are 17 million extremists in the UK, all voting Brexit. Nearly all Remain and Leave voters are moderates.
Nearly all Leave voters are moderates. Almost a 5th of Leave voters are strong supporters of Donald Trump. Can you square that circle?
80% is not far off "nearly all"?
'I'm only paying you 80% of your salary this month, but it's nearly all of it so least said soonest mended.'
Adding Leavers who are moderate supporters of Trump and all those apolitical types who haven't a clue about Trump but think there are far too many immigrants despite living in largely white areas would probably add another few million.
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.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if that poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
(i) The virus is only under control once its eliminated and all restrictions are lifted, (ii) That's not being said by anyone. The UK has done a lot of thinking about the global effort and funding and developing Covax.
There is no right balance here. The right balance is to eradicate Covid - in the UK obviously is top priority and in the world's best interests too given we are aiding the world, then the world.
To stop vaccinating domestically those who need the vaccine, in order to send a piddly number of vaccines to the rest of the world, would be like saying "we should abolish Universal Credit completely, not replace it with anything, because the rest of the world has worse poverty". Its not poverty or aid, its both, starting at home.
Would you deny a doctor a vaccine to give it to a patient instead? The effort of vaccinating the world is aided by having the UK running at 100%.
I think this argument is pretty redundant. The likelihood of getting the EU, US and us to stretch out all our own vaccination programs in order to divert supplies elsewhere is pretty well nil (and for us to do it alone would have little overall effect).
The real issue is how much more money the wealthy nations should be spending to vaccinate the rest of the world. Given that the return on investment to the wealthy nations from ending the pandemic in poorer countries, just in pure economic terms, is massive, we ought all to be spending significantly more as soon as possible. That it is also the right thing to do anyway, is obvious.
On WATO the interviewee after the Sputnik chap remarked that it was a bit rich him calling for international collaboration when only a month ago he was suggesting Astra Zeneca would turn you into a chimp....
That's a relief confirmed nothing to worry about if Peston thinks is end of the world stuff.
Peston concludes a return to a normal way of life is out of the question.
For ever.
And you can see why, given the logic of the doctors. There will always be a new mutation. There will always be a new variant. The virus will always be seeking to evade our grasp. Each lockdown relaxation will be followed by an upsurge from the fiendish new variant they have identified. And that will threaten to overwhelm the health service.
There will always be the prospect of lockdown. Always. Eternal vigilance. Eternal fear. Eternal suspicion. Eternal surveillance.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
Even Dr Sarah on the Jeremy Vine show was slagging it off in the early days.....
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
and from an effectiveness / deliverability / cost perspective, theirs is arguably the best vaccine available full stop.
Poland will not be giving the AstraZeneca vaccine to elderly people in the country, the prime minister’s top aide has announced. Michal Dworczyk, who is in charge of vaccinations, said today that the country of 38 million people would only use the vaccine for people aged 18-60 following a recommendation from the country’s medical council.
They are nearly as bad as Andrew Wakefield and Richard Horton.
Actually they deserve to be in the same circle of hell.
I am still totally confused how Wakefield has managed to hook up with Elle MacPherson.
As his vaccine impact shows he must be a persuasive chap to too many people.
Yes i guess so.... according to Mrs U, she wasn't really interested in me when we first met, but power of persuasion, persistent or just more than likely boring her death did the trick.
Oh, and which of us didn't predict exactly this - weeks back?
The EU seem to only just be waking up to the fact there are two communities in Northern Ireland to worry about.
I don't recall the EU placing an intra-UK border down the Irish Sea. They had a proposal to get around the whole issue which was rejected massively and repeatedly by the 2017 parliament.
Because the 2017 solution was even worse. The NI Protocol subjugating NI to rules they don't vote for is bad and the solution is to find a way out of that mess for NI.
Instead the 2017 solution was to apply the bad protocol for NI to the entire UK simultaneously. That's worse.
That's like saying the solution for one person being sick is to make everyone sick.
GB is out of the Protocol now, good, so now we need to find a way to extract NI out of it too.
And how do we do that? We're back to either invent the world's first digital customs border, or the GFA collapses and potentially the peace. The Intra-Irish border was always the unsquareable circle. If UK was to diverge from the EU and the Irish border must remain open, then NI could no longer be a full part of the UK.
Easy.
If those are the choices then the option is obvious: We invent the world's first digital customs border.
Because the alternative: The GFA collapses and potentially the peace is worse.
That should have been the obvious solution all along, but regrettably years were wasted with the idea of keeping the UK in the EU's customs border. Thankfully that idea was killed before birth. So now we have the Protocol, which reality is showing isn't viable.
The pressure now is where it always should have been. Ireland isn't going to join the UK, the UK isn't going to join the UK, we want peace - Once you've eliminated the impossible the only option left, however improbable, is the solution. A digital system is all that is left.
Trusted traders, self-declarations and a mutual recognition of SPS rather than demanding SPS checks be done. Do that etc and its job done.
You do know that an digital border is an impossible dream created by people like Redwood who haven't got a clue where the issues / complexities begin let alone how big those complexities are.
Its about as impossible as working from home was impossible. Necessity is the mother of invention.
There were only ever 4 viable solutions.
The UK doesn't leave the EU afterall.
The UK and EU find a workable solution.
Violence.
Turn a blind eye and allow trade to flow without the checks and without impediment.
The EU and their fans like your good self thought that by denying (2) and leaving (3) as horrific would force us down the route of (1), since apparently (4) was also unthinkable. Thankfully that's been put paid to now, the UK is out.
So now it is (2), (3) or (4) that are the only options left. So either you choose violence - or you do whatever it takes to prevent it. Whatever it takes will either mean no solution whatsoever and there's no checks and the market has a big gaping hole to enter, or it will entail a digital solution.
The EU seemed to be under a misapprehension the only violent people to worry about in NI were the Nationalists. Them telling their people not to go to work today reveals otherwise. A viable alternative solution has to be found - and that is going to be bloody close to what Redwood etc were always suggesting. It doesn't matter how complex they are, a way needs to be found to get through those complexities if you want peace - peace is complex. NI is complex.
It isn't our departure from the EU that is the problem, its our departure from the EEA. Yes, "necessity is the mother of invention". But it is a peculiar piece of English exceptionalism to surmise that the reason this hasn't yet been invented is because we haven't needed it. There are plenty of other borders who would benefit if such a thing existed - presumably then its only the English who can create it because the rest of the world aren't smart enough?
The UK and EU could have found a workable solution. The problem was that we rejected every single one of the options as not being "proper" Brexit. Leaving the European Union is Brexit. What we do afterwards doesn't change that we have left.
The reality of your position Philip and that of so many Conservative and Unionist MPs is that the Union can go hang in exchange for the prize.
You know I'm a nationalist not a unionist don't you?
It doesn't matter whether you dislike us having left the EEA or not anymore. Its done. The egg is broken and there's no putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.
You're approaching the whole thing backwards. You want to determine what the solution is and then choose a form of Brexit to match that. No, we choose a form of Brext (so having got a "proper" Brexit now) and now we need to find the workable solution that works with that.
It doesn't matter if no solution works yet. Invent one. Needs must and all that.
Not every set of equations has a solution. You can't decrease the total entropy in a closed system, whatever you try. The boys in my A Level class who really wanted a hot date with Taylor Swift didn't get one.
Just because something is desired doesn't mean it has to happen. Necessity is the mother of invention- sure. But you also need the father of realistic possibility.
If it turns out that all those other countries managing trade across a land border are right, and that right now the sort of border you would like can't be made to happen... What then?
Either choose violence or allow an open border which allows smuggling.
Which would you prefer? I would prefer an open border over violence, which is your preference?
If you don't try, you won't get a solution. There is no reason for the EU to deny contemplating a mutual recognition of SPS - that's a choice they've made. If they decide the open border is worse than recognising our SPS then they can change their mind.
One would think the EU was almost trying to provoke the UK into some ill-tempered remarks so it could use that as justification for further steps.
I dont think that is really disputable. The EU has had a contractual issue with AZ, not the UK, so theres been no reason to talk about UK regulatory procedures or invoking the NI protocol.
On WATO the interviewee after the Sputnik chap remarked that it was a bit rich him calling for international collaboration when only a month ago he was suggesting Astra Zeneca would turn you into a chimp....
In good time we should be generous with out vaccines (especially with Ireland poorer nations) but only when we've vaccinated enough of our own people to significantly drive down the infection rate and ease the pressure on the NHS.
By about May we should be in a position to start sharing our vaccines hopefully.
This is what I'm saying. The alternative vision - no diversion until we have done everyone and have full domestic normality with near zero covid here and our borders closed to the world - does not appeal to me.
Thankfully you are not in charge of vaccine disposition
I'll be writing to my MP though. And possibly to the papers too.
Wonderful - if you can get Labour to adopt your policy, the Tories will win every age group from 18 upwards for the foreseeable future.
Interestingly, Labour are positioning in quite the opposite way. I think they will be arguing AGAINST whatever diversion of supplies the government ends up proposing (if they do).
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.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
G , your appetite for chlorinated chicken and hormone full beef surprises me?
As you are so good at numbers , could you oblige with the death rates and positivity rates for same countries , we can then do a real comparison of who is doing well rather than your Tory cult ideas of success.
Deflect, blame, ignore.
You don't want the Scottish government to improve its rate of vaccination?
I want them to improve of course, but yet again you highlight your bias with your selective numbers. I am happy that Scotland has lower death rate , lower positivity rate and lower vaccination rate. I look at the big picture , you on the other hand ignore the devastating other numbers and focus on the one good part. When we are all vaccinated , Scotland a week or so behind England but England still having 40% higher death rate and probably world champions, will you still be crowing.
Sounds like you are the one crowing about deaths in England. Unless you've got a time machine you can't change the past - all we can change is the present and the future - but you and the SNP seem very defensive over Scotland's slower vaccination rate, now the "care homes first" rationale has run out of road.
Trying to avoid the point yet again. Post the numbers or prove that you are a ne'er do well. I know for a fact you will not post the real data, cowards like you just hide in the shadows and post misinformation. Not very pleasant.
I'm sure you can google like anyone else - I'm not your data service. Yes, the death numbers in England are worse - for many reasons, some of which will be government (in)action, others will not.
The point is "where we are today" and "what we could do better". Which you don't want to engage with. Lets hope the new "super centres" in Aberdeen & Edinburgh pick up the pace, but there's a lot of pace to pick up.
Yes you only want to discuss selected data , we know you of old. I prefer to look at all the data and do not pick the small part that is good for my point. For sure I am certain you will never post anything positive about Scotland. I will continue to view your data in with that in mind, knowing it will at best be partial and slanted.
It's not about you or me - its about how well the SNP government is doing at rolling out vaccines.
Well go then regale us on how well England is doing on deaths then. You only select certain items that are bad for Scotland , you ignore all the good data and do the converse for England. Trying to make out that your odd choice is the only topic to be considered is a pathetic attempt at hiding your hatred for Scotland. I will never see you ever post anything positive about Scotland. It is all about you and your bitter twisted hatred of Scotland, not good for your health all that bile and bitterness.
I'm not the one who rants. When the Scottish Government (not "Scotland") started its "care homes first" strategy I wondered whether that - or the England/Wales/NI approach of "blended 1 & 2" would prove more effective" and it would be interesting to find out.
Sadly the Scottish Government (not "Scotland") appears to have treated it as "either/or" not "and".
Never mind - looks like the British Army will be helping out. I expect you're pleased.
Yet again you just cannot help yourself. keep promoting partial truths and now you try to pretend we don't pay for the Army and that the Army we pay for is doing us a favour and suddenly are British and not Scottish part of the UK funded Army. Give yourself a shake and stop digging or you will be in Australia soon.
Poland will not be giving the AstraZeneca vaccine to elderly people in the country, the prime minister’s top aide has announced. Michal Dworczyk, who is in charge of vaccinations, said today that the country of 38 million people would only use the vaccine for people aged 18-60 following a recommendation from the country’s medical council.
That's fine, so long as its reasoned on the data issue and not Macronian conspiracies.
Having another fun afternoon writing entry-level job applications. Is there anything more soul destroying?
Reading them
Seriously, the job applications from those who either were going through the motions or are really not qualified are quite depressing (I'm not in the legal profession, but I guess it's similar anywhere). Go for quality over quantity, apply (for now) only to places you'd actually want to work and put your heart and soul into each application. It comes through.
(This does assume that your application gets to the person doing the hiring. If it's algorithmically sorted or farmed out to some flunky then, well... good luck is all I can say).
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.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if that poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
(i) The virus is only under control once its eliminated and all restrictions are lifted, (ii) That's not being said by anyone. The UK has done a lot of thinking about the global effort and funding and developing Covax.
There is no right balance here. The right balance is to eradicate Covid - in the UK obviously is top priority and in the world's best interests too given we are aiding the world, then the world.
To stop vaccinating domestically those who need the vaccine, in order to send a piddly number of vaccines to the rest of the world, would be like saying "we should abolish Universal Credit completely, not replace it with anything, because the rest of the world has worse poverty". Its not poverty or aid, its both, starting at home.
Would you deny a doctor a vaccine to give it to a patient instead? The effort of vaccinating the world is aided by having the UK running at 100%.
I think this argument is pretty redundant. The likelihood of getting the EU, US and us to stretch out all our own vaccination programs in order to divert supplies elsewhere is pretty well nil (and for us to do it alone would have little overall effect).
The real issue is how much more money the wealthy nations should be spending to vaccinate the rest of the world. Given that the return on investment to the wealthy nations from ending the pandemic in poorer countries, just in pure economic terms, is massive, we ought all to be spending significantly more as soon as possible. That it is also the right thing to do anyway, is obvious.
I think the government and Biden's administration have recognised this, hence our huge contributions to COVAX, it's EU nations states that are completely underinvesting in vaccine production both at home with their own programme and overseas through COVAX.
I think I'd be ok with our aid budget being used to make up the difference but ultimately it needs to then support UK industry and interested if we're going above and beyond what we are already doing for international schemes.
In good time we should be generous with out vaccines (especially with Ireland poorer nations) but only when we've vaccinated enough of our own people to significantly drive down the infection rate and ease the pressure on the NHS.
By about May we should be in a position to start sharing our vaccines hopefully.
This is what I'm saying. The alternative vision - no diversion until we have done everyone and have full domestic normality with near zero covid here and our borders closed to the world - does not appeal to me.
Why not?
Given the world needs billions of doses, not millions of doses; given that getting full normality here means we can send more hundreds of millions of doses to the rest of the world rather than just a couple of million to the rest of the world . . .
. . . why do you want to hurt the rest of the world by not finishing the job here?
It's a speed and priority thing not an either/or. And since you're so fond of absurdly reductive, loaded questions, I will pose YOU one -
Why do you want to hamper the global vaccination effort - and by implication prolong the pandemic and increase the risk of malign mutations - by refusing to release any of our copious stocks and pipeline until we are 100% sorted ourselves even if that takes ages and even then (indeed especially then) we can't open our borders and have to live for years like Vincent Price in The Masque of the Red Death?
I don't want to hamper the global vaccination effort. The UK being fully vaccinated is in the best interests of of the global vaccination effort.
The UK not being fully vaccinated, so the UK isn't fully open domestically, so the UK economy is suppressed, so the UK's supply of global vaccine aid is suppressed hurts not helps the global vaccination effort.
Eight weeks of the UK being fully vaccinated would add £48bn of the UK GDP and add £240mn to the UK's foreign aid budget, let alone anything else we choose to spend. That's enough for us to add 120 million extra doses to global vaccination efforts, more than the amount of doses the UK is going to use domestically.
Why would you deny the rest of the world that aid from us?
We don't have "copious stocks", we are using all the stocks we get in. So that's delusional in thinking the UK can divert some "copious stocks" - any stocks we have should be used.
Re supply, we are not (!) talking about next week or next month. We are talking about the future scenario I painted. I'm a patient person but I have said this a few times now.
The rest of your post is in essence a paean to the long discredited notion of "trickle down" economics. Strictly for free market dogmatists these days.
(i) Is the real world. The rate we're vaccinating and ramping up vaccinations, everyone could be vaccinated by May. If you're not talking any time soon then say EXACTLY when you are talking about. Otherwise you keep spreading nonsense then when called on it say "I didn't mean that". Exactly when do you mean - March, April, May? When 60 year olds have been vaccinated? 50 years olds? Or when the UK is done, which is what everyone else is saying.
Trickle down economics is not discredited, it is very real. The fact that the virus is causing about £6bn in damage to GDP per week in this country, which equates to £30mn in foreign aid per week at 0.5% of GDP (more if you want 0.7% of GDP) is an economic fact.
If you are too pigheaded to understand that the pie can change sizes it explains a lot about your Brownophilia and willingness to see Corbyn as PM.
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
The interesting thing about this is the writer is still obviously attached to the arguments that he found persuasive in 2014 (and that are still the main corroded ammo in the current lot's locker) but he realises that they've been made valueless by Brexit and the kakocracy overseeing it. Still, I'm sure a few streets named after VC winners and reclaiming the idea that the UK was an imperialist enterprise from the wokies should get him back onside.
That guy is giving Comical Ali a run for his money.
I alluded to this on a previous thread, although to me he now seems more like the modern day Lord Haw Haw (sorry for the war reference) or that North Korean news person.
Oh, and which of us didn't predict exactly this - weeks back?
The EU seem to only just be waking up to the fact there are two communities in Northern Ireland to worry about.
I don't recall the EU placing an intra-UK border down the Irish Sea. They had a proposal to get around the whole issue which was rejected massively and repeatedly by the 2017 parliament.
Because the 2017 solution was even worse. The NI Protocol subjugating NI to rules they don't vote for is bad and the solution is to find a way out of that mess for NI.
Instead the 2017 solution was to apply the bad protocol for NI to the entire UK simultaneously. That's worse.
That's like saying the solution for one person being sick is to make everyone sick.
GB is out of the Protocol now, good, so now we need to find a way to extract NI out of it too.
And how do we do that? We're back to either invent the world's first digital customs border, or the GFA collapses and potentially the peace. The Intra-Irish border was always the unsquareable circle. If UK was to diverge from the EU and the Irish border must remain open, then NI could no longer be a full part of the UK.
Easy.
If those are the choices then the option is obvious: We invent the world's first digital customs border.
Because the alternative: The GFA collapses and potentially the peace is worse.
That should have been the obvious solution all along, but regrettably years were wasted with the idea of keeping the UK in the EU's customs border. Thankfully that idea was killed before birth. So now we have the Protocol, which reality is showing isn't viable.
The pressure now is where it always should have been. Ireland isn't going to join the UK, the UK isn't going to join the UK, we want peace - Once you've eliminated the impossible the only option left, however improbable, is the solution. A digital system is all that is left.
Trusted traders, self-declarations and a mutual recognition of SPS rather than demanding SPS checks be done. Do that etc and its job done.
You do know that an digital border is an impossible dream created by people like Redwood who haven't got a clue where the issues / complexities begin let alone how big those complexities are.
Its about as impossible as working from home was impossible. Necessity is the mother of invention.
There were only ever 4 viable solutions.
The UK doesn't leave the EU afterall.
The UK and EU find a workable solution.
Violence.
Turn a blind eye and allow trade to flow without the checks and without impediment.
The EU and their fans like your good self thought that by denying (2) and leaving (3) as horrific would force us down the route of (1), since apparently (4) was also unthinkable. Thankfully that's been put paid to now, the UK is out.
So now it is (2), (3) or (4) that are the only options left. So either you choose violence - or you do whatever it takes to prevent it. Whatever it takes will either mean no solution whatsoever and there's no checks and the market has a big gaping hole to enter, or it will entail a digital solution.
The EU seemed to be under a misapprehension the only violent people to worry about in NI were the Nationalists. Them telling their people not to go to work today reveals otherwise. A viable alternative solution has to be found - and that is going to be bloody close to what Redwood etc were always suggesting. It doesn't matter how complex they are, a way needs to be found to get through those complexities if you want peace - peace is complex. NI is complex.
It isn't our departure from the EU that is the problem, its our departure from the EEA. Yes, "necessity is the mother of invention". But it is a peculiar piece of English exceptionalism to surmise that the reason this hasn't yet been invented is because we haven't needed it. There are plenty of other borders who would benefit if such a thing existed - presumably then its only the English who can create it because the rest of the world aren't smart enough?
The UK and EU could have found a workable solution. The problem was that we rejected every single one of the options as not being "proper" Brexit. Leaving the European Union is Brexit. What we do afterwards doesn't change that we have left.
The reality of your position Philip and that of so many Conservative and Unionist MPs is that the Union can go hang in exchange for the prize.
You know I'm a nationalist not a unionist don't you?
It doesn't matter whether you dislike us having left the EEA or not anymore. Its done. The egg is broken and there's no putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.
You're approaching the whole thing backwards. You want to determine what the solution is and then choose a form of Brexit to match that. No, we choose a form of Brext (so having got a "proper" Brexit now) and now we need to find the workable solution that works with that.
It doesn't matter if no solution works yet. Invent one. Needs must and all that.
Not every set of equations has a solution. You can't decrease the total entropy in a closed system, whatever you try. The boys in my A Level class who really wanted a hot date with Taylor Swift didn't get one.
Just because something is desired doesn't mean it has to happen. Necessity is the mother of invention- sure. But you also need the father of realistic possibility.
If it turns out that all those other countries managing trade across a land border are right, and that right now the sort of border you would like can't be made to happen... What then?
Either choose violence or allow an open border which allows smuggling.
Which would you prefer? I would prefer an open border over violence, which is your preference?
If you don't try, you won't get a solution. There is no reason for the EU to deny contemplating a mutual recognition of SPS - that's a choice they've made. If they decide the open border is worse than recognising our SPS then they can change their mind.
Ultraviolence every time for me, can't get enough of that horrorshow tolchocking. Also a huge fan of hectoring and reductive false dichotomies
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
Be prepared to be trampled underfoot by the crowd rushing to make that apology.
I seem to recall @YBarddCwsc saying early on that it would be dumb to dismiss Russian science whatever one thought of the government.
One of the things I find most amazing of the long list of amazingly stupid things the EU is doing in this whole vaccine business is that they don't even seem to be thinking a few weeks ahead on the politics. I get why they might want to blame AZ/the Brits/the MHRA etc as a cheap political point to distract attention from their own failings, but how the hell do they expect that to continue working as the UK continues to roll out and the effect of the vaccines on the death and hospitalisation figures begins to come through? They are going to look damned silly when it turns out that what they characterise as the our 'risky' approach was much more prudent than theirs.
It's panic. I have seen just this sort of behaviour in other organisations.
They need the Cyclefree Crisis Management Team in charge. 😉
That would mean accepting they might have made mistakes, and that does not seem to be how UvdL operates.
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
You're insane. 🙄
The public will be free soon, thanks to the vaccine. Your antivax antiscience madness is an illness.
That guy is giving Comical Ali a run for his money.
I alluded to this on a previous thread, although to me he now seems more like the modern day Lord Haw Haw (sorry for the war reference) or that North Korean news person.
According to a recent BBC story apologising for getting things wrong is a bit of a Kim Jong Un trademark now.
He'll still kill you for looking at him funny though.
Yes, we've done this. Cue yet more hysteria, some PBers can't help themselves.
Addicted to doom.
Are we though? In under a year, we have developed multiple, effective, safe vaccines. We have the ability to (very rapidly in some cases) adjust these if needed to combat mutations. We have built the capacity to produce and deliver these vaccines at scale. Barring something completely unforeseen, we've not only got this beat, but we've put in the groundwork to better protect ourselves from the next nasty, whether it arrives in one year or a hundred (assuming we don't get complacent and forget what we have learned).
There have been many mistakes, but Covid is going to go down in history as an amazing story of human endeavour, the first time we've been able to move so quickly to overcome a serious new disease without letting it wipe out large parts of the population (I know the death toll has been bad, but nothing compared to those seen historically and nothing compared to the deaths we would have seen if we'd not done anything).
I agree with you! I'm merely saying that there are several PBers who love nothing more than a bit of doom-mongering. You are not one of these strange creatures.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
Agreed. They were probably taking as much umbrage at us as we were at the AZN briefings from Berlin. I have only been to Russia once, to St Petersberg in the 90s (I have a great story about avoiding arrest for drunk and disorderly on Nevsky Prospect by pretending to be on the Goldeneye crew and slipping the cop $20) and loved the people there. They had their eyes wide open about their government (this was just before Putin came in) their sense of humour about it was amazing.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
Be prepared to be trampled underfoot by the crowd rushing to make that apology.
I seem to recall @YBarddCwsc saying early on that it would be dumb to dismiss Russian science whatever one thought of the government.
Perhaps you could provide a list so we know who needs to make an apology.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
Given the way the Russians have politicised and treated this do we have any independent verifiable data to back up the 92% trial?
I wouldn't trust data coming out of Russia at all, without independent verification.
On WATO the interviewee after the Sputnik chap remarked that it was a bit rich him calling for international collaboration when only a month ago he was suggesting Astra Zeneca would turn you into a chimp....
Very few over 60's in the Sputnik again. The two disallowed deaths in the treatment group raises an eyebrow! I would really want to know how they were removed from the results.
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
You're insane. 🙄
The public will be free soon, thanks to the vaccine. Your antivax antiscience madness is an illness.
Total bullsh8t. I would happily take a vaccine if it meant I could be free.
Its clear now, though, that for certain people, that will not be allowed to be the case. New strains are being identified that can evade the vaccine.
Or new reasons to maintain the lockdown, as they are otherwise known.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
Given the way the Russians have politicised and treated this do we have any independent verifiable data to back up the 92% trial?
I wouldn't trust data coming out of Russia at all, without independent verification.
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
Why would anyone want that? It makes no logical sense. Scientists and doctors are people too. They like going to the pub, theatres etc etc. Their families are suffering in this as much as those of everyone else. They want to get out of this as much as everyone else. Websites and other forms of media, on the other hand, love to report shit like this your way because it drives clicks and likes.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
Be prepared to be trampled underfoot by the crowd rushing to make that apology.
I seem to recall @YBarddCwsc saying early on that it would be dumb to dismiss Russian science whatever one thought of the government.
Perhaps you could provide a list so we know who needs to make an apology.
Odd that you've latched on me rather than the poster who wrote 'it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology'.
Comments
(ii) That's not being said by anyone. The UK has done a lot of thinking about the global effort and funding and developing Covax.
There is no right balance here. The right balance is to eradicate Covid - in the UK obviously is top priority and in the world's best interests too given we are aiding the world, then the world.
To stop vaccinating domestically those who need the vaccine, in order to send a piddly number of vaccines to the rest of the world, would be like saying "we should abolish Universal Credit completely, not replace it with anything, because the rest of the world has worse poverty". Its not poverty or aid, its both, starting at home.
Would you deny a doctor a vaccine to give it to a patient instead? The effort of vaccinating the world is aided by having the UK running at 100%.
A Government that instead of spending monies meant to ease the process of Brexit to facilitate fast and efficient veterinary checks on exported fish, spends money on adverts condemning Brexit and advocating independence as the remedy, is not 'working differently and unevenly', it is abandoning responsible Government in favour of behaving as a pressure group.
https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1356384551916941312?s=20
You can't decrease the total entropy in a closed system, whatever you try.
The boys in my A Level class who really wanted a hot date with Taylor Swift didn't get one.
Just because something is desired doesn't mean it has to happen. Necessity is the mother of invention- sure. But you also need the father of realistic possibility.
If it turns out that all those other countries managing trade across a land border are right, and that right now the sort of border you would like can't be made to happen... What then?
That's a relief confirmed nothing to worry about if Peston thinks is end of the world stuff.
They need the Cyclefree Crisis Management Team in charge. 😉
Actually they deserve to be in the same circle of hell.
Around the 350k for the UK which should be fairly up week on week given last week's 'sluggish' start.
It was around 220k last Tuesday.
Almost a 5th of Leave voters are strong supporters of Donald Trump.
Can you square that circle?
Now just a bit of drizzle falling.
Local news showed quite a bit of travel disruption across Yorkshire.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1356604104701849605?s=20
And Sunday was someone else's fault:
https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1356604552150188034?s=20
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Hi nice to meet you, I am that totally non descript bloke whose only claim to fame is beung involved with a massive vaccination scandal....i know you have the pick of the whole room, but would you like to go out sometime.
You might be first rather than last in that group in terms of vaccine roll out.
People who, when in a hole, put down the spade and fire up Bagger 288
The weird thing about the EU's panicked, populist willy waving is they've seen the other side of it so know the benefits of keeping calm yet still gave in to dark impulses.
Sad to say Olivia Newton John is another antivaxxer.
Will never watch Grease again.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/13905490/olivia-newton-john-coronavirus-vaccine-daughter-anti-vaxxer-theory/
Keeping impeccably polite and diplomatic is absolutely the right play, and will annoy them far more.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Total
Total 280,513 1,596 282,109
East Of England 33,951 306 34,257
London 38,629 379 39,008
Midlands 57,441 106 57,547
North East And Yorkshire 35,424 247 35,671
North West 37,796 166 37,962
South East 46,254 254 46,508
South West 29,478 132 29,610
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1356556825626296321
UvdL might take a different view, of course.
The rest of your post is in essence a paean to the long discredited notion of "trickle down" economics. Strictly for free market dogmatists these days.
This is why Richard Horton should resign and the Lancet be closed.
Wakefield says his analysis was published and reviewed in the Lancet so what he said was true, but the shadowy powers and big pharma got him cancelled for speaking the truth.
Shoot it up..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfHxsjH0bUI&ab_channel=DJ.Zsori.GoldHits.
Lovely country, and lovely peoples who are very welcoming apart from to each other.
I once got stuck in a Transvaal town during a lumberjack festival with nowhere to stay. Some very welcoming neo-nazi Afrikaaners put me up for the night. I had to swap travel stories over a braai with them, in a house decorated with AWB flags etc. Really quite surreal, but I couldn't fault their hospitality.
Patrick Murfet wants to import the baby Italian bees for his Kent business and to help farmers pollinate valuable crops. But new laws that came into effect after the UK left the single market mean bringing bees into the country is banned.
Since the end of the transition period, only queen bees can be imported into Great Britain, rather than colonies and packages of bees. However, confusion over whether bees can be brought in via Northern Ireland has caused a legal headache.
Adding Leavers who are moderate supporters of Trump and all those apolitical types who haven't a clue about Trump but think there are far too many immigrants despite living in largely white areas would probably add another few million.
The real issue is how much more money the wealthy nations should be spending to vaccinate the rest of the world.
Given that the return on investment to the wealthy nations from ending the pandemic in poorer countries, just in pure economic terms, is massive, we ought all to be spending significantly more as soon as possible. That it is also the right thing to do anyway, is obvious.
https://twitter.com/hildabast/status/1356584374175629313?s=20
On WATO the interviewee after the Sputnik chap remarked that it was a bit rich him calling for international collaboration when only a month ago he was suggesting Astra Zeneca would turn you into a chimp....
For ever.
And you can see why, given the logic of the doctors. There will always be a new mutation. There will always be a new variant. The virus will always be seeking to evade our grasp. Each lockdown relaxation will be followed by an upsurge from the fiendish new variant they have identified. And that will threaten to overwhelm the health service.
There will always be the prospect of lockdown. Always. Eternal vigilance. Eternal fear. Eternal suspicion. Eternal surveillance.
Which would you prefer? I would prefer an open border over violence, which is your preference?
If you don't try, you won't get a solution. There is no reason for the EU to deny contemplating a mutual recognition of SPS - that's a choice they've made. If they decide the open border is worse than recognising our SPS then they can change their mind.
Seriously, the job applications from those who either were going through the motions or are really not qualified are quite depressing (I'm not in the legal profession, but I guess it's similar anywhere). Go for quality over quantity, apply (for now) only to places you'd actually want to work and put your heart and soul into each application. It comes through.
(This does assume that your application gets to the person doing the hiring. If it's algorithmically sorted or farmed out to some flunky then, well... good luck is all I can say).
I think I'd be ok with our aid budget being used to make up the difference but ultimately it needs to then support UK industry and interested if we're going above and beyond what we are already doing for international schemes.
Trickle down economics is not discredited, it is very real. The fact that the virus is causing about £6bn in damage to GDP per week in this country, which equates to £30mn in foreign aid per week at 0.5% of GDP (more if you want 0.7% of GDP) is an economic fact.
If you are too pigheaded to understand that the pie can change sizes it explains a lot about your Brownophilia and willingness to see Corbyn as PM.
Sputniks potential flaw (and something it shares with AZN) is that vector immunity makes it harder to effectively retool.
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
I seem to recall @YBarddCwsc saying early on that it would be dumb to dismiss Russian science whatever one thought of the government.
The public will be free soon, thanks to the vaccine. Your antivax antiscience madness is an illness.
He'll still kill you for looking at him funny though.
They're multiplyin'.
And she's losin' control....
I wouldn't trust data coming out of Russia at all, without independent verification.
Its clear now, though, that for certain people, that will not be allowed to be the case. New strains are being identified that can evade the vaccine.
Or new reasons to maintain the lockdown, as they are otherwise known.
They want to get out of this as much as everyone else. Websites and other forms of media, on the other hand, love to report shit like this your way because it drives clicks and likes.