Vaccine anecdote update: my GP practice (which was one of the slower ones to begin vaccinations) has now announced that they'll be sending out invitations to Group 5 for appointments next week.
It seems to me that this programme is being rolled on the exact schedule, to an almost uncanny degree of accuracy.
It's weird. Given the record to date you constantly wait for the other shoe to fall and everything to go pear shaped but not a bit of it. Remarkable.
As I've said before, the Government had a good start, a dreadful middle and a strong finish. Which is probably the way you'd want it....
So what you're saying is that lockdown was obviously a waste of time and we should never have done it because SAGE Whitty wibble tosh?
Absolutely not. I am a supporter of lockdown, I hate it, its fucked with my mental health, but appreciate its necessity. My mental health can recover - people don't recover from a fatal spot of Covid. However, brutally, and in the cold light of day, I also think that the new variant that came out of my home county outside of lockdown, in the Autumn, caught everyone by surprise and swept through the population here and later in the rest of the country. It killed far far too many people. It has left the survivors, though, with a degree of immunity that vaccines can only add to. Cases in Kent are dropping by more than nearly everywhere else which, given that lockdown compliance here is not noticably better than elsewhere, the virus has got the low hanging fruit.
I would rather that had not happened, I would far rather that lockdown of last spring had been relaxed far more cautiously, or November's extended into Jan or Feb - but we are where we are. .
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
He is a menace. More boradly, though, the turning point will come when people look at the numbers that the Govt itself provides and says "why are we still doing this"? That's one reason, incidentally, why you shouldn't buy Contra's view of the world. Why would the Government be providing us with stats that we can use to form our own opinions (as misguided as they may be) if there was some overarching plot to leave us like this for as long as possible. Authoritarianism withers in the face of transparency.
@contra's point is that without pressure to look at the numbers and the associated issues (economic, mental health, education, etc) then there would be a temptation for the government to take its time.
If everyone was like PB the numbers would be incidental and the govt could continue to listen to the medics and scientists who would form policy.
It is no stretch to think that a possible sequence of events could be: numbers low, every right (small r)-thinking person says well that's it we've got it cracked, out of lockdown we come, then the CMO says we can't come out of lockdown because we need to be sure the numbers won't rise again.
And that means an open-ended lockdown. With only maybe Rishi as a voice against.
Why? Just because the govt and the country would have become used to following the science.
If I was a fan of an open-ended lockdown and I wanted utter overcaution or I got a kick out of having people locked down, I'd want the voices on the other side to be coming out with incoherent and dishonest crap. So easy to ignore or sideline the Piers Corbyns, or the Ivor Cummins of this world.
The thing that makes it all dangerous is that some people who are so desperate to deny the reality of the situation actually believe the bollocks. Which is why we had people invading hospitals "to show the truth of their emptiness" or demonstrating outside of them, or holding covid parties, and so on. Hell, Yeadon and a couple of the others that Young was hosting was actively publicising dishonest antivaxxer crap, and that's outright dangerous in itself.
If it wasn't for that, I could simply dismiss them as pathetic deniers who can't come to terms with a crisis and I'd be all in favour of them doing whatever it takes as a coping mechanism.
As I said, the government is aware that there is opposition to lockdown. Not on PB, obvs, but "out there". If some people were storming hospitals that is one manifestation.
But I'll take your let's not storm hospitals and counter with what about the woman who was arrested for trying to take her mother out of a care home? All good and proper for the state to do? What about not letting people who were dying see their spouses or families.
What possible reason would there be for an 80-yr old who is dying to be denied seeing or being hugged by their 50-yr old daughter or their 15-yr old grand-daughter? All good?
Lockdown worked. It has prevented deaths, brought down hospitalisations, and given space for vaccines to be developed. But it is also an unprecedented restriction of our freedom.
So if people want to over-react about that, I'm not hugely worried. And you should trust people more. As @rcs1000 tells us, without formal lockdowns people voluntarily lock themselves down.
And what if, come Feb 22nd or March 15th, numbers/deaths/hospitalisations are super low? And what if Chris Whitty says "we can't open up because we would risk infections rising again". Without the knowledge that there would be substantial opposition (again, not from PB, obvs), why wouldn't the government follow that advice?
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
So Carlotta you are saying that countries could have gone out and got vaccines regardless of their status of EU membership?
Germany did.
So how come the EU is the baddy? They just turned out to be useless at vaccine procurement.
As with everything else, membership of the EU was incidental to the real issue.
Many things are possible whilst also facing pressure to not do those things. The EU prizes solidarity so highly it may well be difficult for some to take alternative actions. So I dont agree its incidental when the EC is saying the approach was right as that is relevant.
They might well still consider it the right approach even with the issues, but if presented two options and I'm very strongly told I should pick one of them it's not incidental.
Hmm. The mighty Malta UK would not have been able to plough its own furrow?
We may or may not have chosen to do so, I dont know. I doubt most EU nations think they made a wrong call sticking with the coordinated approach. I merely contest the idea it is incidental if there is a preferred and recommended EU approach. That's highly relevant for any nation considering going outside. They could, some did, but it's not a minor factor
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
He is a menace. More boradly, though, the turning point will come when people look at the numbers that the Govt itself provides and says "why are we still doing this"? That's one reason, incidentally, why you shouldn't buy Contra's view of the world. Why would the Government be providing us with stats that we can use to form our own opinions (as misguided as they may be) if there was some overarching plot to leave us like this for as long as possible. Authoritarianism withers in the face of transparency.
@contra's point is that without pressure to look at the numbers and the associated issues (economic, mental health, education, etc) then there would be a temptation for the government to take its time.
If everyone was like PB the numbers would be incidental and the govt could continue to listen to the medics and scientists who would form policy.
It is no stretch to think that a possible sequence of events could be: numbers low, every right (small r)-thinking person says well that's it we've got it cracked, out of lockdown we come, then the CMO says we can't come out of lockdown because we need to be sure the numbers won't rise again.
And that means an open-ended lockdown. With only maybe Rishi as a voice against.
Why? Just because the govt and the country would have become used to following the science.
If I was a fan of an open-ended lockdown and I wanted utter overcaution or I got a kick out of having people locked down, I'd want the voices on the other side to be coming out with incoherent and dishonest crap. So easy to ignore or sideline the Piers Corbyns, or the Ivor Cummins of this world.
The thing that makes it all dangerous is that some people who are so desperate to deny the reality of the situation actually believe the bollocks. Which is why we had people invading hospitals "to show the truth of their emptiness" or demonstrating outside of them, or holding covid parties, and so on. Hell, Yeadon and a couple of the others that Young was hosting was actively publicising dishonest antivaxxer crap, and that's outright dangerous in itself.
If it wasn't for that, I could simply dismiss them as pathetic deniers who can't come to terms with a crisis and I'd be all in favour of them doing whatever it takes as a coping mechanism.
As I said, the government is aware that there is opposition to lockdown. Not on PB, obvs, but "out there". If some people were storming hospitals that is one manifestation.
But I'll take your let's not storm hospitals and counter with what about the woman who was arrested for trying to take her mother out of a care home? All good and proper for the state to do? What about not letting people who were dying see their spouses or families.
What possible reason would there be for an 80-yr old who is dying to be denied seeing or being hugged by their 50-yr old daughter or their 15-yr old grand-daughter? All good?
Lockdown worked. It has prevented deaths, brought down hospitalisations, and given space for vaccines to be developed. But it is also an unprecedented restriction of our freedom.
So if people want to over-react about that, I'm not hugely worried. And you should trust people more. As @rcs1000 tells us, without formal lockdowns people voluntarily lock themselves down.
And what if, come Feb 22nd or March 15th, numbers/deaths/hospitalisations are super low? And what if Chris Whitty says "we can't open up because we would risk infections rising again". Without the knowledge that there would be substantial opposition (again, not from PB, obvs), why wouldn't the government follow that advice?
The only opposition worth its salt is coming from a handful of Tory backbenchers.
That would imply a more effective suppression of the virus than in Lockdown 1.0, even though we're now in Winter and the rules are slightly less severe.
Is there any other plausible explanation that we can think of besides the effect of mass vaccination feeding through into the figures?
Vaccination plus a degree of immunity via infection. It is the only way to explain why cases in Kent are dropping like a stone.
Regular readers will have also noted that I keep banging on about a similar drop in the other variant ground zero in South Africa.
I reiterate, I am not a lockdown sceptic, they save lives. While I would rather reach a degree of immunity through vaccines alone, given we have been hit so hard over the winter, it is not surprising surely that a degree of immunity by infection has been acheived.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
If I may say, I think you have lost your way of late on PB. Perhaps a consequence of you dipping in and out so your posts have only dealt with bits and bobs and not really delved into the meat of the issue. And who could blame you - better things to do I'm sure.
This post is an example of that, sadly.
A bit mean! I`m jumping to kinabalu`s defence on this.
Look, I think he has the makings of a very solid PB poster. But he needs to commit. I appreciate that he likely spends a lot of time on google so that he can keep up but I just feel these past few days he has drifted off. Perhaps it's a lockdown thing - can't really be bothered anymore. I have a great regard for him so please don't think I'm being mean at all.
Oi, I'm here. But, ok, if we're going to have a 3 way on this, I think you should take a leaf from Stocky. He's a bit angsty on the old liberty front, suspects we're drifting into a mispricing of risk, but he nevertheless calls out the covid denial drivel in posts which otherwise happen to play into his views. It's important to do this imo.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
If I may say, I think you have lost your way of late on PB. Perhaps a consequence of you dipping in and out so your posts have only dealt with bits and bobs and not really delved into the meat of the issue. And who could blame you - better things to do I'm sure.
This post is an example of that, sadly.
A bit mean! I`m jumping to kinabalu`s defence on this.
Look, I think he has the makings of a very solid PB poster. But he needs to commit. I appreciate that he likely spends a lot of time on google so that he can keep up but I just feel these past few days he has drifted off. Perhaps it's a lockdown thing - can't really be bothered anymore. I have a great regard for him so please don't think I'm being mean at all.
Oi, I'm here. But, ok, if we're going to have a 3 way on this, I think you should take a leaf from Stocky. He's a bit angsty on the old liberty front, suspects we're drifting into a mispricing of risk, but he nevertheless calls out the covid denial drivel in posts which otherwise happen to play into his views. It's important to do this imo.
Too rushed, trying to pack too much in there. But I get you were trying to get it in before everyone moved over to the other thread.
How do you see PR being implemented? Referendum? Or with SNP votes in parliament as they are leaving the country? Not sure they win a referendum, and even as a big fan of PR I am not sure using SNP votes to decide a huge constitutional change for rUK would be acceptable. Also doesnt take many rebels to stop it happening, plenty of Labour MPs are not fans of PR.
Various possibilities:
1. The UK loses a war to a real democracy. 2. A benevolent artificial super intelligence gradually assumes control of all global affairs. 3. Labour MPs do something a) beneficial and b) strategically smart. 4. My secret band of left/liberal desperados take the levers of power and bequeath a written constitution and sensible political settlement when the guillotining is done.
Except R doesn't work in that way. Its not as simple as adding the different factors together. Can't be, or otherwise the stated Kent increase of +0.7 would have prevented R going lower than 1 at all.
That would imply a more effective suppression of the virus than in Lockdown 1.0, even though we're now in Winter and the rules are slightly less severe.
Is there any other plausible explanation that we can think of besides the effect of mass vaccination feeding through into the figures?
As I've said before - R factors are not simple additions. There is much more complexity here. Transmission depends on how many people you meet and how easy it is to pass on, but you can't just add the factors.
And yes - we have a lot of people who have had covid and thus (pretty much immune) and now ever greater numbers vaccinated and heading for immunity.
So what you're saying is that lockdown was obviously a waste of time and we should never have done it because SAGE Whitty wibble tosh?
Absolutely not. I am a supporter of lockdown, I hate it, its fucked with my mental health, but appreciate its necessity. My mental health can recover - people don't recover from a fatal spot of Covid. However, brutally, and in the cold light of day, I also think that the new variant that came out of my home county outside of lockdown, in the Autumn, caught everyone by surprise and swept through the population here and later in the rest of the country. It killed far far too many people. It has left the survivors, though, with a degree of immunity that vaccines can only add to. Cases in Kent are dropping by more than nearly everywhere else which, given that lockdown compliance here is not noticably better than elsewhere, the virus has got the low hanging fruit.
I would rather that had not happened, I would far rather that lockdown of last spring had been relaxed far more cautiously, or November's extended into Jan or Feb - but we are where we are. .
Just to be clear, you were not the target of my ire! Sarcasm doesn't always work perfectly on here.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
So Carlotta you are saying that countries could have gone out and got vaccines regardless of their status of EU membership?
Germany did.
So how come the EU is the baddy? They just turned out to be useless at vaccine procurement.
As with everything else, membership of the EU was incidental to the real issue.
The EU's defence of their procurement is "if we hadn't done it the small countries would have got nothing" which sits at odds with their smallest member being furthest ahead because they got organised themselves
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
If I may say, I think you have lost your way of late on PB. Perhaps a consequence of you dipping in and out so your posts have only dealt with bits and bobs and not really delved into the meat of the issue. And who could blame you - better things to do I'm sure.
This post is an example of that, sadly.
A bit mean! I`m jumping to kinabalu`s defence on this.
Look, I think he has the makings of a very solid PB poster. But he needs to commit. I appreciate that he likely spends a lot of time on google so that he can keep up but I just feel these past few days he has drifted off. Perhaps it's a lockdown thing - can't really be bothered anymore. I have a great regard for him so please don't think I'm being mean at all.
Oi, I'm here. But, ok, if we're going to have a 3 way on this, I think you should take a leaf from Stocky. He's a bit angsty on the old liberty front, suspects we're drifting into a mispricing of risk, but he nevertheless calls out the covid denial drivel in posts which otherwise happen to play into his views. It's important to do this imo.
Too rushed, trying to pack too much in there. But I get you were trying to get it in before everyone moved over to the other thread.
Just so long as the point has penetrated despite the little outbreak of brittle facetiousness. It is important.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
So Carlotta you are saying that countries could have gone out and got vaccines regardless of their status of EU membership?
Germany did.
So how come the EU is the baddy? They just turned out to be useless at vaccine procurement.
As with everything else, membership of the EU was incidental to the real issue.
The EU's defence of their procurement is "if we hadn't done it the small countries would have got nothing" which sits at odds with their smallest member being furthest ahead because they got organised themselves
It shows the small-minded nature of the European Union and their advocates. They genuinely think "big is better, big wins, small gets nothing" and can't comprehend alternatives.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
If I may say, I think you have lost your way of late on PB. Perhaps a consequence of you dipping in and out so your posts have only dealt with bits and bobs and not really delved into the meat of the issue. And who could blame you - better things to do I'm sure.
This post is an example of that, sadly.
Suggest you take the point onboard rather than resorting to oblique putdown. Either your text processing powers or your standards require improvement. Lies and misinformation should be called out. It's tosh to conflate this with groupthink.
You're a bit like the Tories who say that the next Lab leader should be more like a Tory.
People who are contrarian or pushing a line you don't like should be more like you would like them to be.
Is that it?
Lies and misinformation should not be applauded regardless of the line being pushed. And Contrarian posts reams of lies and misinformation on Covid. Indeed I suspect he is having a laugh and trolling with it much of the time. So, you know, be aware not a square on this.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
Problem is, when the questioners consistently and obviously persist in coming out with obvious bollocks, it rather dents the entire case for ANYONE who wants to question it.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd postulate a false flag operation.
Do you have a link for Malta buying its own vaccines?
How do you see PR being implemented? Referendum? Or with SNP votes in parliament as they are leaving the country? Not sure they win a referendum, and even as a big fan of PR I am not sure using SNP votes to decide a huge constitutional change for rUK would be acceptable. Also doesnt take many rebels to stop it happening, plenty of Labour MPs are not fans of PR.
Various possibilities:
1. The UK loses a war to a real democracy. 2. A benevolent artificial super intelligence gradually assumes control of all global affairs. 3. Labour MPs do something a) beneficial and b) strategically smart. 4. My secret band of left/liberal desperados take the levers of power and bequeath a written constitution and sensible political settlement when the guillotining is done.
Number 3 is the least likely.
Surely the scenario set out earlier on this thread (forgive me I forget by whom) is the most likely.
Labour gains power on the back of SNP support. This in turn is conditional on an Independence referendum. Labour realises that the Scots will vote for independence and that in turn will remove the Labour majority in the current Parliament and make it far less likely there will be one in future Parliaments. Labour, the SNP and the other minor parties push through a change to electoral law that all future votes are by a PR system.
It may be constitutionally dodgy if there is no PR referendum and they have not included it in their manifesto but they would argue that Parliament is sovereign and should be able to chose how it is elected.
For the record I am against PR but it seems perfectly feasible that it could be introduced in the way I describe.
I'm afraid I think that, despite Johnson's lies (and Brandon Lewis now continuing to lie, the DUP might prefer to support the Cons to Labour in the scenario you envisage.. Remember when Miliband suffered from being portrayed as being in the pocket of Alex Salmond? The DUP (though not the Northern Irish in general) are hostile to the SNP, for their anti-unionism among other things.
Labour should be organizing citizens' debate on P.R, so that some at least of the electorate know what's at issue. If they care to run on P.R., it should be on a system that people have seen the point / fairness of. So it won't be A.V.,
How do you see PR being implemented? Referendum? Or with SNP votes in parliament as they are leaving the country? Not sure they win a referendum, and even as a big fan of PR I am not sure using SNP votes to decide a huge constitutional change for rUK would be acceptable. Also doesnt take many rebels to stop it happening, plenty of Labour MPs are not fans of PR.
Various possibilities:
1. The UK loses a war to a real democracy. 2. A benevolent artificial super intelligence gradually assumes control of all global affairs. 3. Labour MPs do something a) beneficial and b) strategically smart. 4. My secret band of left/liberal desperados take the levers of power and bequeath a written constitution and sensible political settlement when the guillotining is done.
Number 3 is the least likely.
Surely the scenario set out earlier on this thread (forgive me I forget by whom) is the most likely.
Labour gains power on the back of SNP support. This in turn is conditional on an Independence referendum. Labour realises that the Scots will vote for independence and that in turn will remove the Labour majority in the current Parliament and make it far less likely there will be one in future Parliaments. Labour, the SNP and the other minor parties push through a change to electoral law that all future votes are by a PR system.
It may be constitutionally dodgy if there is no PR referendum and they have not included it in their manifesto but they would argue that Parliament is sovereign and should be able to chose how it is elected.
For the record I am against PR but it seems perfectly feasible that it could be introduced in the way I describe.
"dodgy" ?? "may be"??
Ha ha ha ... When did 'dodgy' ever stop the wild realms of fancy we get from the remainer lefty cohort.
Comments
I would rather that had not happened, I would far rather that lockdown of last spring had been relaxed far more cautiously, or November's extended into Jan or Feb - but we are where we are. .
But I'll take your let's not storm hospitals and counter with what about the woman who was arrested for trying to take her mother out of a care home? All good and proper for the state to do? What about not letting people who were dying see their spouses or families.
What possible reason would there be for an 80-yr old who is dying to be denied seeing or being hugged by their 50-yr old daughter or their 15-yr old grand-daughter? All good?
Lockdown worked. It has prevented deaths, brought down hospitalisations, and given space for vaccines to be developed. But it is also an unprecedented restriction of our freedom.
So if people want to over-react about that, I'm not hugely worried. And you should trust people more. As @rcs1000 tells us, without formal lockdowns people voluntarily lock themselves down.
And what if, come Feb 22nd or March 15th, numbers/deaths/hospitalisations are super low? And what if Chris Whitty says "we can't open up because we would risk infections rising again". Without the knowledge that there would be substantial opposition (again, not from PB, obvs), why wouldn't the government follow that advice?
Regular readers will have also noted that I keep banging on about a similar drop in the other variant ground zero in South Africa.
I reiterate, I am not a lockdown sceptic, they save lives. While I would rather reach a degree of immunity through vaccines alone, given we have been hit so hard over the winter, it is not surprising surely that a degree of immunity by infection has been acheived.
But, ok, if we're going to have a 3 way on this, I think you should take a leaf from Stocky. He's a bit angsty on the old liberty front, suspects we're drifting into a mispricing of risk, but he nevertheless calls out the covid denial drivel in posts which otherwise happen to play into his views. It's important to do this imo.
The story that Carlotta posted above the key story of the pandemic so far.
1. The UK loses a war to a real democracy.
2. A benevolent artificial super intelligence gradually assumes control of all global affairs.
3. Labour MPs do something a) beneficial and b) strategically smart.
4. My secret band of left/liberal desperados take the levers of power and bequeath a written constitution and sensible political settlement when the guillotining is done.
Number 3 is the least likely.
And yes - we have a lot of people who have had covid and thus (pretty much immune) and now ever greater numbers vaccinated and heading for immunity.
From cases
From hospitalisations
(This is in the same thread:
https://twitter.com/helenopinion/status/1360215627902910466
)
Labour gains power on the back of SNP support. This in turn is conditional on an Independence referendum.
Labour realises that the Scots will vote for independence and that in turn will remove the Labour majority in the current Parliament and make it far less likely there will be one in future Parliaments.
Labour, the SNP and the other minor parties push through a change to electoral law that all future votes are by a PR system.
It may be constitutionally dodgy if there is no PR referendum and they have not included it in their manifesto but they would argue that Parliament is sovereign and should be able to chose how it is elected.
For the record I am against PR but it seems perfectly feasible that it could be introduced in the way I describe.
Ha ha ha ... When did 'dodgy' ever stop the wild realms of fancy we get from the remainer lefty cohort.