Sorry, I is confused: which character in The Wizard of Oz was gay?
I don't know and I don't care, but no way should a film featuring those flying monkeys have a "U" certificate.
That's not as bad as Watership Down getting one.
They haven't really given it a U have they? Even many of the parts that are not viciously bloody are surreal and dark enough to be very creepy for young children.
I heartily recommend it for kids though, it certainly stayed with me!
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Politics is or should be about passion and indeed anger. One has a right to be angry and to express that anger passionately but I agree personalising that is counter-productive.
However, being angry about the consequences of, for example, Universal Credit and citing how that policy has affected individuals is wholly legitimate - in other words, if you make someone else as angry as you are you've made progress.
A big part of politics is passion - getting normally unexcited people excited about an issue is a huge part of engaging them in the political process. Oppositions do well when that engagement happens. A successful Opposition party is that blend of reasoned argument and directed passion.
Labour needs to find issues and causes which generate that passion and harness it. As an example, we all want the elderly to be well treated, we all want children to have the best opportunities in life. Citing where this Government is or has failed the elderly, showing examples of where children are being denied life opportunities - that's the kind of thing that engages because, as a wise man once said "we're all someone's daughter, we're all someone's son".
It looks as though this year will be the deadliest ever on the US slopes.
Google News throws up reports of a number of skiing deaths in the US in the last few weeks, including Tahoe.
So, we can certainly conclude that skiing is a good deal more dangerous than the AZ vaccine.
I hope the cautious EU bans such a reckless activity.
That's a terrible comparison.
If you look at the amount of time people spend getting vaccinated, and compare it to the amount of time people spend skiing, then you'll see that on a "risk per minute" basis, the AZ vaccine is 100x more dangerous.
Well, let's do the sums.
Here is North America:
"Based on 52.8 million total skier/snowboarder visits during the 2015-16 season, the fatality rate converts to less than one fatality per one million skier visits (or 0.74 fatalities per one million skier visits during the 2015-16 season, slightly above the 10-year average rate of 0.67 fatalities per million skier visits)." (Source NSAA)
So you are saying the AZ has a fatality rate of worse than 0.74 per one million patient visits.
There have been at least 237 million jabs worldwide, of course not all AZ.
Let's say AZ is 20 per cent of them -- so where are the 0.2 * 237 * 0.74 = 35 deaths from AZ ?
Yes, but getting vaccinated takes two minutes, but you'll spend three hours (at least) skiing. So that means every ski visit is - minute for minute - worth 90 vaccinations.
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Presumably he means Claudia Webbe up before the Westminster Beak for Harrassment tomorrow, if memory serves.
I've been watching the debate on the policing bill from the Commons. Many valuable contributions from all sides.
But if I were the Tories I would hide Lee Anderson away. His contribution, if broadcast widely, would help the Tories regain the nasty party meme. Unpleasant and vituperative, his short speech was like a Tommy Robinson tribute act and contributed zilch to the debate. Labour has some rogues, but nothing like Anderson.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that we should be pleasant to people who hate our guts. Why shouldn't we speak plainly to nutters like this?
Intellectuals, journalists, political commentators, celebrities -- they all loved Adlai.
He lost.
Ah, so because some people in the past in some other country liked somebody and then that person lost, then we should assume SKS will suffer the same fate.
Well, no point in considering anything else then. Thanks.
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Presumably he means Claudia Webbe up before the Westminster Beak for Harrassment tomorrow, if memory serves.
I've been watching the debate on the policing bill from the Commons. Many valuable contributions from all sides.
But if I were the Tories I would hide Lee Anderson away. His contribution, if broadcast widely, would help the Tories regain the nasty party meme. Unpleasant and vituperative, his short speech was like a Tommy Robinson tribute act and contributed zilch to the debate. Labour has some rogues, but nothing like Anderson.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that we should be pleasant to people who hate our guts. Why shouldn't we speak plainly to nutters like this?
Presumably he means Claudia Webbe up before the Westminster Beak for Harrassment tomorrow, if memory serves.
I've been watching the debate on the policing bill from the Commons. Many valuable contributions from all sides.
But if I were the Tories I would hide Lee Anderson away. His contribution, if broadcast widely, would help the Tories regain the nasty party meme. Unpleasant and vituperative, his short speech was like a Tommy Robinson tribute act and contributed zilch to the debate. Labour has some rogues, but nothing like Anderson.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that we should be pleasant to people who hate our guts. Why shouldn't we speak plainly to nutters like this?
This was the point I was trying to make earlier. The only good outcome is that a rigorous investigation takes place and no serious adverse effects are found. Hopefully that will happen here! But suppose an - almost certainly very small - fatal effect is discovered, what then? Would public confidence in the process be higher if you had decided not to investigate? This does worry me.
To be clear, this can happen to any of the vaccines and I am not commenting on whether suspension is a good idea or not.
It’s a shocking lack of understanding of human nature by those doing it.
People remember the headline of suspending the rollout due to questions raised on safety. Especially if you get headline after headline after headline after headline (availability heuristic). They filter out the headline in “oh, actually it’s okay after all.” Partly because the headlines are invariably fewer and less conspicuous (because “Danger?!?!” is a bigger attention grabber than, “Oh, actually, nothing to see here, never mind...”)
The mindset is “So why did they stop in the first place if it was okay, then? You can’t tell me this is all fine after that!”
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Presumably he means Claudia Webbe up before the Westminster Beak for Harrassment tomorrow, if memory serves.
I've been watching the debate on the policing bill from the Commons. Many valuable contributions from all sides.
But if I were the Tories I would hide Lee Anderson away. His contribution, if broadcast widely, would help the Tories regain the nasty party meme. Unpleasant and vituperative, his short speech was like a Tommy Robinson tribute act and contributed zilch to the debate. Labour has some rogues, but nothing like Anderson.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that we should be pleasant to people who hate our guts. Why shouldn't we speak plainly to nutters like this?
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
Yes.
During the development of the AZ vaccine, they used tissue from an aborted foetus which has led to (a) the Catholic Church opining on it, and (b) a number of crazy religious groups in the US jumping on the bandwagon on the basis the Catholic Church was not being hardline enough.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
I'm not sure how many are avoiding all vaccines. But there's an anti J&J thing in the US linked to use of old aborted foetuses in development.
If the Brits do get nervous about AZ/Oxford thanks to France, Italy and co. twatting about, at least our main vulnerable groups have now pretty much been done (1st dose anyway).
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
Yes.
During the development of the AZ vaccine, they used tissue from an aborted foetus which has led to (a) the Catholic Church opining on it, and (b) a number of crazy religious groups in the US jumping on the bandwagon on the basis the Catholic Church was not being hardline enough.
What has the Catholic Churches 'opining' consisted of?
Presumably he means Claudia Webbe up before the Westminster Beak for Harrassment tomorrow, if memory serves.
I've been watching the debate on the policing bill from the Commons. Many valuable contributions from all sides.
But if I were the Tories I would hide Lee Anderson away. His contribution, if broadcast widely, would help the Tories regain the nasty party meme. Unpleasant and vituperative, his short speech was like a Tommy Robinson tribute act and contributed zilch to the debate. Labour has some rogues, but nothing like Anderson.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that we should be pleasant to people who hate our guts. Why shouldn't we speak plainly to nutters like this?
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Labour need to move beyond their early-mid 1980s internecine conflict and hatred of the Tories to win.
I mean, the Tories have been in power for coming up to eleven years now.
Do Labour look to you like they did in 1990? Or like the Tories did in 2008 when they were tearing Brown a new one?
I was LAB in the 1990s. In 1990 I, as a then LAB voter, was confident LAB would win in teh next election. LAB were consistently well clear in the polls, did well in the 1990 local elections. Of course in retrospect LAB were not going to win in 1992 because people did not want Kinnock in No. 10 but he took them fairly close!
Currently I don't see LAB as close. Starmer only has appeal to a limited part of the electorate. Also the team behind Kinnock in 1992 was much stronger than LAB have behind Starmer today.
Looks like defeat for LAB in GE2024, although I expect LAB to be back c2029 IF they can come up with a better leader, a better supporting team and policies.
This was the point I was trying to make earlier. The only good outcome is that a rigorous investigation takes place and no serious adverse effects are found. Hopefully that will happen here! But suppose an - almost certainly very small - fatal effect is discovered, what then? Would public confidence in the process be higher if you had decided not to investigate? This does worry me.
To be clear, this can happen to any of the vaccines and I am not commenting on whether suspension is a good idea or not.
It’s a shocking lack of understanding of human nature by those doing it.
People remember the headline of suspending the rollout due to questions raised on safety. Especially if you get headline after headline after headline after headline (availability heuristic). They filter out the headline in “oh, actually it’s okay after all.” Partly because the headlines are invariably fewer and less conspicuous (because “Danger?!?!” is a bigger attention grabber than, “Oh, actually, nothing to see here, never mind...”)
The mindset is “So why did they stop in the first place if it was okay, then? You can’t tell me this is all fine after that!”
Fucking dolts.
What's more, a (common?) refrain in Europe seems to be to reject whatever vaccine is on offer and "wait" for the good one. The idea that both time is of the essence, and that there is potential scarcity of supply is not computing. It's even worse if by rejecting vaccines they're actually being wasted. This is thankfully something that does not appear to be happening at all here, and the authorities have been very pro-active in seeing off from the start. The message is that they're all good enough, and take what you can get, as soon as you can get it.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
Yes.
During the development of the AZ vaccine, they used tissue from an aborted foetus which has led to (a) the Catholic Church opining on it, and (b) a number of crazy religious groups in the US jumping on the bandwagon on the basis the Catholic Church was not being hardline enough.
What has the Catholic Churches 'opining' consisted of?
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Labour need to move beyond their early-mid 1980s internecine conflict and hatred of the Tories to win.
I mean, the Tories have been in power for coming up to eleven years now.
Do Labour look to you like they did in 1990? Or like the Tories did in 2008 when they were tearing Brown a new one?
I was LAB in the 1990s. In 1990 I, as a then LAB voter, was confident LAB would win in teh next election. LAB were consistently well clear in the polls, did well in the 1990 local elections. Of course in retrospect LAB were not going to win in 1992 because people did not want Kinnock in No. 10 but he took them fairly close!
Currently I don't see LAB as close. Starmer only has appeal to a limited part of the electorate. Also the team behind Kinnock in 1992 was much stronger than LAB have behind Starmer today.
Looks like defeat for LAB in GE2024, although I expect LAB to be back c2029 IF they can come up with a better leader, a better supporting team and policies.
It doesn't help that they're split down the middle on too many major issues.
“A number of European Governments have panicked baselessly and condemned more of their people to suffering and death by avoiding a proven treatment for a killer disease on the grounds of unproven allegations, directly against the medical advice of the EU and WHO,” would be an honest summary.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
Yes.
During the development of the AZ vaccine, they used tissue from an aborted foetus which has led to (a) the Catholic Church opining on it, and (b) a number of crazy religious groups in the US jumping on the bandwagon on the basis the Catholic Church was not being hardline enough.
What has the Catholic Churches 'opining' consisted of?
“In our current circumstances, when better options are not available, the use of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines remains a morally valid option,” the bishops wrote. “On the other hand, vaccines such as AstraZeneca-Oxford use aborted fetal lines in design, development, production and testing, and therefore are not a morally valid option because better options are available.”
A clever tweet, but also notable for its provenance. She's the health editor of The Economist, one of the most pro-EU journals in the UK
The EU aren't the ones suspending the use of AZ/Oxford though are they?
I suppose maybe if the EMA stand firm, and the EU Governments come back into line, then it will have made a decent case for abolishing member competences in health approvals.
Is it time for us to block all exports of AZ/Oxford to europe (if there are any?). What's the point if the police are going to impound them?
They really can't make up their minds. First they were desperate for it, now they don't want anything to do with it. And while the UK enjoys 5 million doses this week, they will have what, close to zero?
I mentioned this astonishing action earlier (well astonishing, if you don't know anything about the Italian police). Given their history, it would be entirely sane for vaccine manufacturers to pull out of supplying Italy completely.
Presumably he means Claudia Webbe up before the Westminster Beak for Harrassment tomorrow, if memory serves.
I've been watching the debate on the policing bill from the Commons. Many valuable contributions from all sides.
But if I were the Tories I would hide Lee Anderson away. His contribution, if broadcast widely, would help the Tories regain the nasty party meme. Unpleasant and vituperative, his short speech was like a Tommy Robinson tribute act and contributed zilch to the debate. Labour has some rogues, but nothing like Anderson.
Yet he's not the one on charges for allegedly harassing a young woman for two years.
Found the speech, and it's still a good, though pointed, quip. Interested as to the cause - I have not heard that bitterness in his tone before. You know that he was a popular, though gruff, Labour Councillor for a number of years?
Very much a backbench cannon-fodder speech though with not that much content. The "14 senior Lab politicians arrested or charged in the last 6 months" presumably includes councillors, and is very much a turnaround of stuff often thrown the other way - though not usually by MPs; more as blog taking points. 14 sounds about right for all parties.
One of my views is that those indulging themselves with 'look at the awful Tories' politics, are letting themselves be defined by their own Straw Men.
I wonder the best way of persuading him to support some modifications to the bill? I'll probably go for asking him to encourage the supporting Lords' Amendments particularly on the use of the Statutory Instrument for purposes not intended, and a couple of other points. He won't shift on longer sentences.
I'm sympathetic to trespass on land being able to be dealt with criminally, though - having seen a number of our parks and playing fields significantly damaged, and the planning system is often treated with contempt. Ashfield, btw, is up to date with traveller pitches. Needs checks and balances.
I used my recent letter to argue for Health Service pay increase, so I need to wait a bit before sending another one.
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Thanks. I agree with lots of this. To be exact SKS needs millions of people who vote Tory to think about switching to voting Labour so that enough do so. Labour lost last time by 3.6 million votes.
As a floating voter (I am about to vote Labour in a local election, for a candidate who has never in recent years said a good word about his own party) my image of a Labour activist is someone who honestly and sincerely says that Tories are 'scum' and 'vermin' and so on. Even some Labour MPs talk in that tone. The party has no idea how to get non Labour decent centrists to vote for them. Attacking and marginalising the very people you need is a terrible tactic. This alone would explain why SKS himself is well thought of, but his party gets nowhere in the polls.
Will the last SLab MSP please turn out the lights.
The new SLab leader Sarwar is putting himself up to contest Glasgow Southside, Sturgeon’s seat. It’s entirely symbolic as they’re also both on the list, but SLabbers are convincing themselves that he has a chance. You will never extinguish the hope in SLab (and other Lab folk) that they’ll get ‘their’ voters back and normal service will be resumed.
I mentioned this astonishing action earlier (well astonishing, if you don't know anything about the Italian police). Given their history, it would be entirely sane for vaccine manufacturers to pull out of supplying Italy completely.
Which is another reason why the contractual haggling by the EU was so daft. They thought they were being clever by trying to ensure liability remained with the manufacturer. The UK and US indemnified the manufacturers.
This is fun. This is what it must have been like, to be non-British watching Britain making a total clownish spectacle of itself, during the worst of Brexit. Only this is more serious and therefore more blackly comic, if you are that way inclined
This is fun. This is what it must have been like, to be non-British watching Britain making a total clownish spectacle of itself, during the worst of Brexit. Only this is more serious and therefore more blackly comic, if you are that way inclined
Anyone who has played Europa Universalis understands this. -1 Stability.
The actions of Ireland are bad enough - but hopefully it'll be a short pause till Thursday there (That's quite bad enough). But the Italian police seizing 400,000 vaccines. Sweet Jesus christ
This is fun. This is what it must have been like, to be non-British watching Britain making a total clownish spectacle of itself, during the worst of Brexit. Only this is more serious and therefore more blackly comic, if you are that way inclined
It’s alright. The EU is offering a blood sacrifice. Several thousand Covid deaths...
To be fair, it shoud really say "What On Earth are European Countires, most of whom happen to be in the EU, although a few aren't, playing at"
There's an argument that the EU failures over the vaccine procurement in general have led to a lack of confidence in the bloc's administration, to the extent that the individual countries are reverting to national actions*. But lack the necessary competences so are acting in utterly confused ways - taking unilateral action on vaccine suspension but then appealing to the EMA to advise them on the next steps. But the EMA can't give them any more advice than they have already provided and been ignored. Basically "no evidence of any causal links, constant evaluation, balance of risks strongly against suspensions".
*When was the last time anyone saw or heard anything from von Leyen or the EU health spokesperson? They've been invisible for weeks.
This 61 year old Scot got his vaccine appointment letter today. It gave me 2 1/2 days notice. Just as well the vaccination centre is five minutes walk away....
Back in January, my mum got 5 hours' notice (by phone) for an 8.30pm appointment! But like you, the local clinic is only 5-ish minutes' walk away.
The actions of Ireland are bad enough - but hopefully it'll be a short pause till Thursday there (That's quite bad enough). But the Italian police seizing 400,000 vaccines. Sweet Jesus christ
Give it 72 hours and the mafia will be selling it to the highest bidder.....
Yes, it's incredibly worrying that in that Opinium poll, under the current PM, the Tories are polling at 43% - the same 40-year record vote share they already won in 2019.
Constant quaking will ensue over the fact that even in that poll Boris leads Starmer on 'Best PM' by 12% and has overtaken him in net approval too, lol...
Not quite . The Tory GB vote in 2019 was actually 44.6%.
This is fun. This is what it must have been like, to be non-British watching Britain making a total clownish spectacle of itself, during the worst of Brexit. Only this is more serious and therefore more blackly comic, if you are that way inclined
The actions of Ireland are bad enough - but hopefully it'll be a short pause till Thursday there (That's quite bad enough). But the Italian police seizing 400,000 vaccines. Sweet Jesus christ
I hope they are maintaining the cold chain during seizure, transport and storage. Otherwise, that is 400k does down the drain.
To be fair, it shoud really say "What On Earth are European Countires, most of whom happen to be in the EU, although a few aren't, playing at"
There's an argument that the EU failures over the vaccine procurement in general have led to a lack of confidence in the bloc's administration, to the extent that the individual countries are reverting to national actions*. But lack the necessary competences so are acting in utterly confused ways - taking unilateral action on vaccine suspension but then appealing to the EMA to advise them on the next steps. But the EMA can't give them any more advice than they have already provided and been ignored. Basically "no evidence of any causal links, constant evaluation, balance of risks strongly against suspensions".
*When was the last time anyone saw or heard anything from von Leyen or the EU health spokesperson? They've been invisible for weeks.
There seems to be a Law of the 21st Century, that every major western nation has to completely humiliate itself, in some peculiar way, one by one.
First it was Britain (yay, still pioneering!). We did Brexit, and- even as a Leaver, I admit we did it BADLY. Cartoonishly bad. Article 50 did not help - it was designed to hinder - but from Raab saying "I did not realise Dover was an important port" to David "I see only upsides to Brexit" Davis to John Redwood saying "we can make our own jet planes!" to any number of daily mortifications provided by Theresa May and friends, we were humiliated.
Then the Americans got jealous of us hogging the limelight and trumped us, with, well, Trump. Even MORE insane. Far more surreal. Beyond description at some points. An actual lunatic leading the most powerful nation on earth, and, a deeply embarrassing, gross, misogynist, hapless, demented lunatic at that. Not even articulate or charming, IN ANY WAY, just fucking weird.
And yet.... it's not over.... here come France, Germany, Italy, acting like small medieval city states confronted by mysterious lepers: crucifying black dogs, hitting mandrakes with Bibles, lacerating themselves with whips as punishment for people eating things.
I'm all in favour of Brexit, but what sort of life do you lead where it's the single most important decision in it?
Best =/= single most important
The best decision I ever made was emailing my future wife on match.com.
The worst decision was agreeing to take in a rescue dog called Zoya. The second worst was agreeing to take in a rescue dog named Chica. The third and fourth worst were agreeing to take in rescue cats called Samantha and Tabatha.
US will cover 100% of cost for children to be vaccinated The White House is holding a press briefing featuring Dr Anthony Fauci, Andy Slavitt, and Dr Rochelle Wolensky.
Just now Slavitt, senior adviser to the Covid-19 response coordinator, announced the Biden administration will “nearly double Medicare’s reimbursement rates for administering Covid vaccines from about $23 per shot to $40 per shot.”
Slavitt also announced the “administration will now be covering 100% of the cost from Medicaid and children’s health beneficiaries to get vaccinated.”
- does this mean that adults are having to pay to get vaccinated in the States? That would be insane.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
Yes.
During the development of the AZ vaccine, they used tissue from an aborted foetus which has led to (a) the Catholic Church opining on it, and (b) a number of crazy religious groups in the US jumping on the bandwagon on the basis the Catholic Church was not being hardline enough.
What has the Catholic Churches 'opining' consisted of?
“In our current circumstances, when better options are not available, the use of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines remains a morally valid option,” the bishops wrote. “On the other hand, vaccines such as AstraZeneca-Oxford use aborted fetal lines in design, development, production and testing, and therefore are not a morally valid option because better options are available.”
Nothing the Catholic Church likes better than a good old fashioned medieval plague. UvdL had better watch out or they might burn her as a witch.
That's quite an irresponsible headline from the Times. Truth is: there are near-baseless fears over bloodclots. Really tiny tiny evidence. 7 cases in 1.6m Germans jabbed.
What we don't want, in any way, is this crazy European anti-vaxxery to infect the UK. The Times editor has made a foolish and potentially hazardous error.
Curious as soon as a thread is started with a pro-Starmer heading, there's an almost Pavlovian response.
At the moment the evidence is strong that people would be willing to be critical of the Tories and to vote against them in principle, but not to vote for the Labour party. Their leader is plainly decent, able and in touch. His party is toxic and there is a strong sense that the cabinet level ability Labour needs in force is either hiding or isn't there at all. It is not Pavlovian, for example, to point out the puzzle that such a decent Labour leader, after such a year, is not miles ahead in the polling. Rather than being Pavlovian it is a central question for UK politics in our day. SKS has no greater challenge.
Fair enough - it was simply curious how rapidly the anti-Starmer and anti-Labour responses came out rather than anything supporting the general premise of the thread.
As to your comment, I agree Starmer is a decent man and is an example of a politician who might well be a better Prime Minister than LOTO (there are those for whom the reverse applies of course).
Now, we're back to this notion Labour is "toxic" - is it? To some degree and a lot of what happened in the Corbyn years was unacceptable but the solutions to toxicity are generally time (as happened with the Conservatives who needed nearly a decade after leaving office) or an immediate confronting of those seemingly part of the problem (this was the Kinnock response to Militant).
Had Starmer thrown Corbyn out of the Labour Party and several MPs/councillors/activists followed, would this have been detoxification in extremis? It probably would have been good politics but in the midst of a global pandemic, would anyone have noticed?
Sometimes a page has to be seen to be turned rather than just being turned. That is Starmer's problem - Covid has stopped him turning the page publicly and effectively. He has to do that as part of the journey to convincing the wider electorate his Labour Party has something different to say.
Also 38% is a pretty good poll rating at a time when the incumbent Government is likely to be a continuing beneficiary of a 'rallying round' factor related to the pandemic.
I kind of feel that the whole debate about making women feel safe at night, has rather lost sight of the initial murder (maybe by design given the concerns being raised about compromising the court case) where the accused is a serving policeman, who might well have actively exploited that status as part of his alleged actions. You can have all the police presence you like, but it doesn't really solve anything if one can't trust the police themselves.
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
Yes.
During the development of the AZ vaccine, they used tissue from an aborted foetus which has led to (a) the Catholic Church opining on it, and (b) a number of crazy religious groups in the US jumping on the bandwagon on the basis the Catholic Church was not being hardline enough.
What has the Catholic Churches 'opining' consisted of?
“In our current circumstances, when better options are not available, the use of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines remains a morally valid option,” the bishops wrote. “On the other hand, vaccines such as AstraZeneca-Oxford use aborted fetal lines in design, development, production and testing, and therefore are not a morally valid option because better options are available.”
Nothing the Catholic Church likes better than a good old fashioned medieval plague. UvdL had better watch out or they might burn her as a witch.
The actions of Ireland are bad enough - but hopefully it'll be a short pause till Thursday there (That's quite bad enough). But the Italian police seizing 400,000 vaccines. Sweet Jesus christ
I hope they are maintaining the cold chain during seizure, transport and storage. Otherwise, that is 400k does down the drain.
I think that's precisely what will happen. Why seize them rather than just giving a pause on vaccinations like everywhere else that isn't quite as bonkers as Italy ?
Watching Laura Kuenssberg's retrospective on Covid, there's something of a comedy sketch show character about Keir Starmer. He lacks gravitas.
I do find your analysis somewhat ironic, when the supremely electorally successful Alexander Johnson has based his "Boris" persona on Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle character.
A clever tweet, but also notable for its provenance. She's the health editor of The Economist, one of the most pro-EU journals in the UK
The EU aren't the ones suspending the use of AZ/Oxford though are they?
The EU Medicines Authority has been pretty supportive of AZN.
But it's not their call.
The EMA is not some autonomous body floating above everything. Its decision making body, I believe. is made up of national regulators, the same women and men who have paused AZ in France, Germany, Spain, Italy.
It will be hard for them to contradict their own advice given two days earlier?!
Or maybe I am missing something. I kinda hope I am.
The actions of Ireland are bad enough - but hopefully it'll be a short pause till Thursday there (That's quite bad enough). But the Italian police seizing 400,000 vaccines. Sweet Jesus christ
Give it 72 hours and the mafia will be selling it to the highest bidder.....
Anyone have any good contacts with the 'Ndrangheta?
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
Although surely the reduction in deaths by the shift in reporting criteria was “an enormous cover up of deaths [perpetrated] by clots”?
What's scary about the crazy anti-vaxxers is the extent to which people can remain immune to facts and data. The UK is vaccinating people with AZ, and unless there's been an enormous cover up of death by clots*, then it will be sustainably CV19 free by mid-May, and with an economy getting back to normal.
You would think this would lead to people re-evaluating their beliefs: hmmmm... the UK seems to be over this CV19 thing, maybe AZ isn't killing people...
But as Toby Young has proved, once you have taken an opinion, facts won't change it in a hurry.
* I'm going for no.
There are several different strands to whats perceived as anti-vaxxers at the moment, some groups will quickly change their mind, others wont or will take a long time.
Those who are holding off for these reasons will take it:
Let someone else try it first Safety processes in an emergency should be same as in normal times even if not logical Worried about effectiveness
These won't:
Religious Fatalists Covid deniers Conspiracy therorists
Is there some evidence of people avoiding the vaccine for religious reasons?
Yes.
During the development of the AZ vaccine, they used tissue from an aborted foetus which has led to (a) the Catholic Church opining on it, and (b) a number of crazy religious groups in the US jumping on the bandwagon on the basis the Catholic Church was not being hardline enough.
What has the Catholic Churches 'opining' consisted of?
“In our current circumstances, when better options are not available, the use of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines remains a morally valid option,” the bishops wrote. “On the other hand, vaccines such as AstraZeneca-Oxford use aborted fetal lines in design, development, production and testing, and therefore are not a morally valid option because better options are available.”
Nothing the Catholic Church likes better than a good old fashioned medieval plague. UvdL had better watch out or they might burn her as a witch.
That would probably save lives.
It’s as if her calling in life has been to retrospectively make Barrosso and Juncker look like political giants. Like Trump with George W Bush.
I'm all in favour of Brexit, but what sort of life do you lead where it's the single most important decision in it?
Best =/= single most important
The best decision I ever made was emailing my future wife on match.com.
The worst decision was agreeing to take in a rescue dog called Zoya. The second worst was agreeing to take in a rescue dog named Chica. The third and fourth worst were agreeing to take in rescue cats called Samantha and Tabatha.
Hey at least it wasn’t vault.com
What is that saying about the definition of madness ...
This is fun. This is what it must have been like, to be non-British watching Britain making a total clownish spectacle of itself, during the worst of Brexit. Only this is more serious and therefore more blackly comic, if you are that way inclined
That is very good!
Maybe they'll go the other route taken with celestial events and regard it as a sign AZ is the messiah?
Comments
I'll bet you £100 that 2021 will see fewer than 40 ski and snowboard deaths in 2021.
https://twitter.com/NeilFindlay_MSP/status/1370798424854032385
https://twitter.com/JodyyDC/status/1205342709436878850
Well, no point in considering anything else then. Thanks.
I mean, the Tories have been in power for coming up to eleven years now.
Do Labour look to you like they did in 1990? Or like the Tories did in 2008 when they were tearing Brown a new one?
For one thing, when people are spoiling for a fight it can really irritate them to not offer one on the terms they would like.
"We'll fight them in the beaches, we shall fight in the polling stations, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets...."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/14349304/boris-to-hike-nuke-arsenal-and-deploy-more-troops/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
People remember the headline of suspending the rollout due to questions raised on safety. Especially if you get headline after headline after headline after headline (availability heuristic).
They filter out the headline in “oh, actually it’s okay after all.” Partly because the headlines are invariably fewer and less conspicuous (because “Danger?!?!” is a bigger attention grabber than, “Oh, actually, nothing to see here, never mind...”)
The mindset is “So why did they stop in the first place if it was okay, then? You can’t tell me this is all fine after that!”
Fucking dolts.
Who honestly cares which of them is the second largest party in Scotland? It matters not a jot to anyone else. They're as useless as each other.
Please don't repeat the mistakes of 1942 guys. Please.
Read the books.
During the development of the AZ vaccine, they used tissue from an aborted foetus which has led to (a) the Catholic Church opining on it, and (b) a number of crazy religious groups in the US jumping on the bandwagon on the basis the Catholic Church was not being hardline enough.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5141457/
Arguably that's a second-order effect that comes into play only when the scores were otherwise fairly close.
"doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines" if available
Edit to add: what an odd turn of phrase "fathers of family" is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjOPLTTjnwc
Currently I don't see LAB as close. Starmer only has appeal to a limited part of the electorate. Also the team behind Kinnock in 1992 was much stronger than LAB have behind Starmer today.
Looks like defeat for LAB in GE2024, although I expect LAB to be back c2029 IF they can come up with a better leader, a better supporting team and policies.
Call out the lies. Call out the madness.
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1371532192564740096
“In our current circumstances, when better options are not available, the use of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines remains a morally valid option,” the bishops wrote. “On the other hand, vaccines such as AstraZeneca-Oxford use aborted fetal lines in design, development, production and testing, and therefore are not a morally valid option because better options are available.”
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1371588536814743560
https://www.politico.eu/article/von-der-leyen-astrazeneca-contract-contains-binding-orders/
Is it time for us to block all exports of AZ/Oxford to europe (if there are any?). What's the point if the police are going to impound them?
"Astra Zeneca is a hugely effective vaccine against a terrible and dangerous disease, so we are going to stop using it for a while"
That is what he just said
Fucking morons
Found the speech, and it's still a good, though pointed, quip. Interested as to the cause - I have not heard that bitterness in his tone before. You know that he was a popular, though gruff, Labour Councillor for a number of years?
Very much a backbench cannon-fodder speech though with not that much content. The "14 senior Lab politicians arrested or charged in the last 6 months" presumably includes councillors, and is very much a turnaround of stuff often thrown the other way - though not usually by MPs; more as blog taking points. 14 sounds about right for all parties.
One of my views is that those indulging themselves with 'look at the awful Tories' politics, are letting themselves be defined by their own Straw Men.
I wonder the best way of persuading him to support some modifications to the bill? I'll probably go for asking him to encourage the supporting Lords' Amendments particularly on the use of the Statutory Instrument for purposes not intended, and a couple of other points. He won't shift on longer sentences.
I'm sympathetic to trespass on land being able to be dealt with criminally, though - having seen a number of our parks and playing fields significantly damaged, and the planning system is often treated with contempt. Ashfield, btw, is up to date with traveller pitches. Needs checks and balances.
I used my recent letter to argue for Health Service pay increase, so I need to wait a bit before sending another one.
https://twitter.com/matholomoo/status/1371540137356705796?s=20
This is fun. This is what it must have been like, to be non-British watching Britain making a total clownish spectacle of itself, during the worst of Brexit. Only this is more serious and therefore more blackly comic, if you are that way inclined
But the Italian police seizing 400,000 vaccines. Sweet Jesus christ
*When was the last time anyone saw or heard anything from von Leyen or the EU health spokesperson? They've been invisible for weeks.
First it was Britain (yay, still pioneering!). We did Brexit, and- even as a Leaver, I admit we did it BADLY. Cartoonishly bad. Article 50 did not help - it was designed to hinder - but from Raab saying "I did not realise Dover was an important port" to David "I see only upsides to Brexit" Davis to John Redwood saying "we can make our own jet planes!" to any number of daily mortifications provided by Theresa May and friends, we were humiliated.
Then the Americans got jealous of us hogging the limelight and trumped us, with, well, Trump. Even MORE insane. Far more surreal. Beyond description at some points. An actual lunatic leading the most powerful nation on earth, and, a deeply embarrassing, gross, misogynist, hapless, demented lunatic at that. Not even articulate or charming, IN ANY WAY, just fucking weird.
And yet.... it's not over.... here come France, Germany, Italy, acting like small medieval city states confronted by mysterious lepers: crucifying black dogs, hitting mandrakes with Bibles, lacerating themselves with whips as punishment for people eating things.
The Humiliation of the West, 2016-2030.
Australia, you're next.
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1371469211676114947
US will cover 100% of cost for children to be vaccinated
The White House is holding a press briefing featuring Dr Anthony Fauci, Andy Slavitt, and Dr Rochelle Wolensky.
Just now Slavitt, senior adviser to the Covid-19 response coordinator, announced the Biden administration will “nearly double Medicare’s reimbursement rates for administering Covid vaccines from about $23 per shot to $40 per shot.”
Slavitt also announced the “administration will now be covering 100% of the cost from Medicaid and children’s health beneficiaries to get vaccinated.”
- does this mean that adults are having to pay to get vaccinated in the States? That would be insane.
What we don't want, in any way, is this crazy European anti-vaxxery to infect the UK. The Times editor has made a foolish and potentially hazardous error.
But it's not their call.
It will be hard for them to contradict their own advice given two days earlier?!
Or maybe I am missing something. I kinda hope I am.
(Is that my coat?)