There's a lot of talk about companies moving out of countries that threaten export bans. In reality, though, there must be huge costs involved in relocating highly specialised manufacturing plants. It would mean a mega sized interruption to their incomes.
Were it not for the fact that additional capacity is required now most of the world will need an annual Covid jab.
That extra capacity would usually be built by extending or building an additional factory near the existing one.
But that is no longer a safe option after the EU's behaviour over the past few months.
So if you need to expand European production capacity and you can't trust the EU which country out of none EU countries do you choose?
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
I'm not a creature. It's people like me - in the Modern Metro Left - who will ensure that the plague of softhead National Populism will be beaten as sure as Covid almost is. We are the vaccine.
You are a creature, if I had to specify, I would - to be fair - identify you as more of a weevil or a woodlouse, rather than an actual cockroach, or a plague rat - which is yer actual Seamus Milne or Corbyn
ie the sight of you evinces a tiny wince of distaste, and no more, a brushing of the hand and a turning away.
Your more extreme lefties evoke proper repulsion. I am not sure how Labour fixes this, but the polls are not encouraging. After starting the culture wars, you are now losing them, in the ballot box, even as you seem to win them in the media. It is a fake victory for you
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
The nature of what they're asking for is the issue. They want to do it with the existing app which essentially allows the state to track your movements in very high detail without the judicial protections that come with criminal investigations and warrants necessary to do it otherwise.
It's something dreamt up by Priti Patel and the public health people who think they know what's best for us and would have everyone stay home all the time forever.
OK, but if it was a physical card, like youngsters have to show to get into a pub or nightclub, that would be OK, yes? If not, why not?
It's only remotely all right if said people aren't able to get one. It's not that a vaxport infringes your civil liberties if you're able to get one, but when lack of one excludes those who don't have a chance to get one, that's a long way from all right.
You will be able to get a quick test, which will give you a 48 hour passport. It's not hard to work out. It may be hard to enact, practically, however
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Because most people never have to show any of those things in their daily lives. Most people don't live in London, are over 18, and don't need to show an over 65 card if they're in that age group because they don't use public transport. The only time most people need to have ID is if they're travelling abroad. On the other hand, in the United States you can't do anything without ID.
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
The nature of what they're asking for is the issue. They want to do it with the existing app which essentially allows the state to track your movements in very high detail without the judicial protections that come with criminal investigations and warrants necessary to do it otherwise.
It's something dreamt up by Priti Patel and the public health people who think they know what's best for us and would have everyone stay home all the time forever.
OK, but if it was a physical card, like youngsters have to show to get into a pub or nightclub, that would be OK, yes? If not, why not?
It's only remotely all right if said people aren't able to get one. It's not that a vaxport infringes your civil liberties if you're able to get one, but when lack of one excludes those who don't have a chance to get one, that's a long way from all right.
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
I'm not a creature. It's people like me - in the Modern Metro Left - who will ensure that the plague of softhead National Populism will be beaten as sure as Covid almost is. We are the vaccine.
You are a creature, the term applies to all animals including homo sapiens. Leon is misusing it.
I am glad my mates don't act like the EU....if they did I imagine they would be shitting on the carpet and putting my golf clubs through my OLED telly before I knew it.
Proving vaccination status to enter a pub is a solution in search of a problem. Our vaccination uptake rate is likely to end up above 90%. We have little need to nudge people to take the vaccine.
I imagine everyone who thought it would be an easy way to introduce ID cards is having a panic about the missed opportunity.
Re: domestic vaccination passports. It seems to me absolutely astonishing (and scary) the seeming blithe acceptance by many of the inevitability of this idea. Labour's position even seems to be that it isn't fair to leave the decision to pubs etc, so it actually has to be made mandatory!
This would be the biggest imposition on civil liberties in UK history (and don't give me all this - "well if you don't want to go out in public, that's your choice nonsense"). The issue isn't even whether people should be de facto forced into getting vaccinated. What people are talking about is a digital passport which will, in effect, track you whenever you enter a crowded public space. This is beyond even the idea of (paper) ID cards, where at least there is no clear trail of where you've been. It is a severe curtailment of the rights of the vaccinated, as well of those who opt out. Just think what the authorities could do with this if they so wished...
And i really am struggling to understand what the supposed health benefit payoff is supposed to be. Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them. And in the vaccinated numbers we are talking about there would be overwhelming herd immunity preventing any occasional transmission to or from unvaccinated people having no particular effect on public health as a whole. So for those who want to remain unvaccinated, it really is largely a personal choice.
Or alternatively (god forbid) the vaccines don't work as hoped. In which case the whole point supposed point of a vaccine passport is moot anyway. Is this that somebody has planted a seed in the politicians heads, and nobody lacks the ability to actually think through either the need or the implications.
If we need them to go abroad, well that's a decision for other countries that we can do little to influence. And that question really is only about the personal choice to get vaccinated, with no additional burden for those who do.
There's a lot of talk about companies moving out of countries that threaten export bans. In reality, though, there must be huge costs involved in relocating highly specialised manufacturing plants. It would mean a mega sized interruption to their incomes.
Were it not for the fact that additional capacity is required now most of the world will need an annual Covid jab.
That extra capacity would usually be built by extending or building an additional factory near the existing one.
But that is no longer a safe option after the EU's behaviour over the past few months.
So if you need to expand European production capacity and you can't trust the EU which country out of none EU countries do you choose?
Yes the UK should be actively courting every single major pharma company in the world. Despite what the EU idiots say the UK has got no ban on vaccines exports and it's extremely unlikely we'd ever put one up. Let's use this opportunity to bring billions in investment and all the jobs that come with it to the UK. Let's become the global leader in vaccine and therapeutics manufacturing, rather than just the global research leader which then outsources manufacturing to other countries.
There's a lot of talk about companies moving out of countries that threaten export bans. In reality, though, there must be huge costs involved in relocating highly specialised manufacturing plants. It would mean a mega sized interruption to their incomes.
The point will probably be made 'but what about when looking when to locate new plans/investment', which is true, but I think companies are probably pretty hardnosed about this stuff, and the thing about a political mess coming out of nowhere for one country/region, is that they can also come out of nowhere for another. Once the hit has already happened and you have to plan for years, a lot of the time I'd not be surprised if it is less risky to just take that known risk than up sticks and move elsewhere, which might do something crazy and stupid next year.
On the flags rigmarole, I really don't see why it is a big deal, but it clearly is for people since most people don't feel strongly about it, but if some are railing against it or loudly talking about how much they don't care, well, they do. The Tories must be loving it (not that it solves all their problems in all regions) - an issue most people either don't care about, or are mildly positive about, and which for bizarre reasons tears apart parts of their opponents, and all they have to do is put up flags in TV appearances and tell people to fly them more?
As far as effort and cost expended to disrupt their opponent, sure, it is not the most useful, but it is bloody efficient. Just ignore it and let any silliness show itself when they overdo it.
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Because it'll evolve into a pass that will be demanded of you all over the place and without which it becomes increasingly difficult to live a normal life. The first objection is that we (or a great many of us anyway) don't want to live in a society where any old do-gooder, busy-body and plod can ask to see your pass twenty times a day.
The second objection is that it's a means to impose vaccinations on the unwilling, or even to discriminate against the unable. We don't need to contemplate the former if we have herd immunity and the latter is just cruel.
The third objection is that it will be used as a massive data gathering exercise by the state, to obtain intrusive information on people's behaviour. Not even those who don't have smartphones will be exempt. They'll likely have a paper cert with a barcode or QR code on it that has to be scanned and interfaces with a central database every time they enter most public venues.
The fourth objection is that, once this apparatus of mass surveillance is built, we will never be rid of it. The data is too useful to the Government. The excuse will be advanced that Covid hasn't gone away, or it's needed in case something like Covid happens again, or some other public health justification will be invented. It will turn into a national ID card by the back door and will carry on forever.
The final objection is that it is ultimately useless for the intended purpose. The period during which supposedly risky venues like pubs will be open but some people won't yet have been offered the vaccine (and might therefore theoretically need either to wait for one before going to them, or to be tested,) will be a transitory one, during which infection rates will be under control and at very low, Summer levels anyway. After a couple of months even the youngest adults will have been vaccinated and then after that we'll all have had as much protection as we're going to get. At that juncture, and given the very high uptake of vaccines seen so far, especially amongst the most vulnerable groups, there would seem to be virtually no benefit to, or justification for, trying to track who in a pub or a theatre has or has not been vaccinated.
And that's because there isn't any public health benefit to them. Their real value to Government isn't in saving a load of people from dying horribly, it's as a mechanism for whole population, total mass surveillance.
None of this is anything remotely like a proof of age card used in one or two specific circumstances. Oyster is a little further down the route, but even in that case you can charge the things anonymously with cash if you really want to. They're not the same thing, not the same thing at all.
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
The Track and trace app was crap - what makes you think this one will be any different?
It's already on my NHS app that I can use to book appointments and request repeat prescriptions. Problem is, it's on the same page as other prescriptions so not really something I want to show someone else.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
There's a lot of talk about companies moving out of countries that threaten export bans. In reality, though, there must be huge costs involved in relocating highly specialised manufacturing plants. It would mean a mega sized interruption to their incomes.
In principle I think you are right. But in practice the UK, for example, is already pushing ahead with building new production facilities and doing so in very short timespans. So it is not impossible that companies may decide to move. Moreover many of the companies already have production facilities in multiple countries and I can easily see a situation where they decide to shut down facilities in those countries enforcing export bans and move them to those facilities in more enlightened states.
Re: domestic vaccination passports. It seems to me absolutely astonishing (and scary) the seeming blithe acceptance by many of the inevitability of this idea. Labour's position even seems to be that it isn't fair to leave the decision to pubs etc, so it actually has to be made mandatory!
This would be the biggest imposition on civil liberties in UK history (and don't give me all this - "well if you don't want to go out in public, that's your choice nonsense"). The issue isn't even whether people should be de facto forced into getting vaccinated. What people are talking about is a digital passport which will, in effect, track you whenever you enter a crowded public space. This is beyond even the idea of (paper) ID cards, where at least there is no clear trail of where you've been. It is a severe curtailment of the rights of the vaccinated, as well of those who opt out. Just think what the authorities could do with this if they so wished...
And i really am struggling to understand what the supposed health benefit payoff is supposed to be. Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them. And in the vaccinated numbers we are talking about there would be overwhelming herd immunity preventing any occasional transmission to or from unvaccinated people having no particular effect on public health as a whole. So for those who want to remain unvaccinated, it really is largely a personal choice.
Or alternatively (god forbid) the vaccines don't work as hoped. In which case the whole point supposed point of a vaccine passport is moot anyway. Is this that somebody has planted a seed in the politicians heads, and nobody lacks the ability to actually think through either the need or the implications.
If we need them to go abroad, well that's a decision for other countries that we can do little to influence. And that question really is only about the personal choice to get vaccinated, with no additional burden for those who do.
With civil liberties I always think it is better to be cautious as once conceded they can be hard to regain, but on vast numbers of things the tradeoff is worth that risk and many people take an absolutist position, drawing the line more around 'don't inconvenience me personally', which is a bit much.
But the gains from this don't seem proportionate to the cost, and I don't think one needs to be a contrarian libertarian to conclude that.
Edit - We disagree on where to draw the line, but there has to be one.
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Because most people never have to show any of those things in their daily lives. Most people don't live in London, are over 18, and don't need to show an over 65 card if there're in that age group because they don't use public transport. The only time most people need to have ID is if they're travelling abroad.
The proposals being touted go far beyond simply "showing a card" as a one off event to get through a door, bad though that is (especially given the somewhat unclear benefits - see below). The talk is of making this digital, which means creating a permanent record of where you've been at what time. It effectively tracks your movements around the public arena.
And can somebody, for the love of god, please explain to me what the actual widespread public health benefit of a vaccine passport is in a highly vaccinated population? (apologies if this has been answered earlier). Either the vaccine works to control infection and, particularly, spread, in which case a few unvaccinated (let alone actually infected) people coming into close contact with an overwhelmingly vaccinated population has no impact, or it doesn't, in which case there's no point in drawing a distinction between the vaccinated and the not vaccinated. It's different with something like international travel where a country may be exposed to the introduction of the virus and wants to be very careful who it allows in.
Should have realised that my earlier posting on the thread was re-emerging! Apologies for the effective repetition...
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Any hints to your politics? Woke warrior or Priti fan?
Thanks!
One of the few remaining Lib Dems in the country, albeit more by default than anything else. Centre left economics (but with more emphasis on the centre) and in that awkward spot on the social spectrum where the truly woke probably think I'm an evil oppressor and people who like waving flags think I'm going on BLM marches while apologising for being white.
If it helps with triangulation, I'd prefer Starmer to Johnson, but saw a choice between Johnson and Corbyn as the difference between cutting off an arm and cutting off a leg.
Sounds like we are twins, only I am 20 years older...
I'm a lawyer rather than a doctor, so that probably makes you the good twin and me the evil one.
Well welcome anyway Maffew. Always good to have the voice of evil represented on here. :-)
Whereabouts are you geographically?
Are there any Doctors out there with jabs that can cure lawyers?
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Businesses aren't crying out for it only authoritarians
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
No.
The vaccine itself is the exit route.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
The vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a risk, non trivial, of nasty illness. We don't have enough data yet to assess how much is *truly* risked
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
I am glad my mates don't act like the EU....if they did I imagine they would be shitting on the carpet and putting my golf clubs through my OLED telly before I knew it.
Bollocks are we friends. Right now the EU is only one small step away from being in the same group as Russia and China. i.e. Never trust them.
So had my jab at the Centre for Life. 1500 done today. A veritable Gen X production line. All classes, political views, incomes and wealth, occupations, races, no doubt sexualities, too. Vast range of physical health on display. And mental health concealed. All in it together. A snapshot of a NE age group cohort. The acid house generation 30 years on. Something you wouldn't normally ever see tbh. Strangely moving.
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
I'm not a creature. It's people like me - in the Modern Metro Left - who will ensure that the plague of softhead National Populism will be beaten as sure as Covid almost is. We are the vaccine.
You are a creature, if I had to specify, I would - to be fair - identify you as more of a weevil or a woodlouse, rather than an actual cockroach, or a plague rat - which is yer actual Seamus Milne or Corbyn
ie the sight of you evinces a tiny wince of distaste, and no more, a brushing of the hand and a turning away.
Your more extreme lefties evoke proper repulsion. I am not sure how Labour fixes this, but the polls are not encouraging. After starting the culture wars, you are now losing them, in the ballot box, even as you seem to win them in the media. It is a fake victory for you
Kinabalu is far politer than DuraAce, but just as bonkers.
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
No party has a monopoly on the flag.
It's just naff to have one on constant display, like some fetish, but a fairly harmless fetishism.
Agree. I have no fondness for turning the flag into A Thing, but better that than it be the property of small minded fascists, and once the issue is outed in this way, the clefts it reveals go much further than flags.
Labour's problem is not, of course, flags in themselves, it is the incompatible enclave nature of their support base, and its unattractiveness to normal a-political people who never think about flags until someone burns it or is against it.
There is an interesting piece of academic work here on this thread concerning flag symbolism, and why it evokes such strong reactions:
For someone not bothered you do seem to be a bit obsessed
No, I am not bothered if people fly flags or not, though I am interested in what it means to them and why they do so.
Are they suddenly more patriotic than a couple of months ago? Or is it that they clutch onto nurse for fear of something worse? It does seem that the love of the Union flag seems greatly increased by the threat to the break up of the Union. One paradox is that "in your face" Unionism is more likely to encourage the countries fissile tendencies.
I have a Union Flag (and an England one) to wave at appropriate sporting events, but most of the time they are in the cupboard.
The SNP is clearly using the saltire - to an absolutely insane extent - to drive its desired end: the break-up of the Union.
How hard is this to work out? The Union is finally - belatedly, to my mind - responding. With its own symbols.
eg there should be Union Jacks over every single box of vaccines, maybe every vial. It is a great British success, driven by British ingenuity and funded by British taxpayers (including many Scots, of course). Let the Scots know this. Slap a flag on it.
Fight back.
The EU did this for years, they demanded the EU flag be emblazoned on every project "funded by the EU", even if it was simply our own money recycled. You did not object then.
In Scotland the EU flag isn't associated with hundreds of marches a year involving some of the worst bigots, rioters and violent racists around, folk like the people involved in the crime below. But please do carry on plastering the UJ everywhere.
Mr. Uniondivvie, I would be prepared to accept Union Jacks on public buildings in exchange for the banning of the Orange Lodge and Rangers Football Club.
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
No.
The vaccine itself is the exit route.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
The vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a risk, non trivial, of nasty illness. We don't have enough data yet to assess how much is *truly* risked
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
Why not just get your home without it, if cases start climbing bring it in. Sorry bringing it in because bad stuff might happen is absolutely the wrong way to do it. We didn't lock down till bad stuff started happening why should we put up with this imposition on the off chance
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
Particularly given lateral flow tests administered by non-medics are infamously as inaccurate as a Nick Gibb statement on schools.
Noone under 40 is going to bother with this, we'll just drink at each other's houses for a bit.
No you won't. What bollocks
You will be offered a free vaccination, which takes 10 minutes and is painless but might make you feel a bit poorly for 2 days (or, do nothing at all), a vaccine which protects you from a terrible disease which can ruin your life even if you never go to hospital (see that remarkable story posted by Mr Nabavi, in a prior thread)
Moreover, this vaccine will be a visa to hassle-free travel, going to gyms and theatres, not infecting your parents, or vulnerable people, why the F would you not take it? For free?! What point are you proving? Ha! I don't believe in SCIENCE! Take that, biology!
You will take it. 90% of people will take it. Maybe more
I think he means if the government delays our vaccines as they currently say they will. I find the idea ridiculous that they could even consider introducing vaccine passports while simultaneously fucking off all under 50s by not giving us vaccines.
Happily, it's not going to be an issue. There's a reason Novavax have fucked the EU off today.
Any more news on when Novavax are going to be approved for use ?
No news but it won't be long now I think, maybe a couple of weeks.
Will this release an immediate fresh flood of supply though, or is the cavalry only going to come charging over the hill in time for the Autumn booster campaign?
Both, we have got lots and lots of vaccine doses coming. Our autumn booster will probably be a single dose of AZ adjusted for the various mutations, we'll need around 32m doses to cover what we need. In addition from 2022 onwards we have our CureVac deal which is domestic manufacturing as well.
This whole EU issue is a massive unnecessary distraction, we've got planned domestic supply of around 50m doses per month of which around 10m is already online and another 5m is due soon with a ramp up to 25m per month around June.
In addition we have J&J and Pfizer coming from Belgium which will never put in a vaccine ban.
This is a nasty disease. It would be nice if most of the under 50s weren't left kicking our heels until June or July waiting and waiting and waiting for the supply bottleneck finally to ease. That's what I was concerned about. AZ is still the only domestic product actually in use, which leaves us very reliant on Pfizer in Belgium being allowed to fulfil their contracts. I know that you and others have good reasons for expecting them to continue to be able to do so, but the EU has been going a bit loopy recently and Belgium is a small country which could find itself subject to heavy pressure from more powerful neighbours.
We won't be, I really won't stop repeating myself. The two new vaccines will arrive in April and they will necessitate a very large number of first doses, especially if we continue to leverage a JiT dosing strategy with a 6-8 week gap. We could easily do 3-4m first doses per week of Moderna/Novavax together in April and May to cover all of the remaining groups with first doses and then the following 6-8 weeks with second doses.
What's really interesting is that a single Novavax booster may actually cover off a lot of the variants for people who have already been fully vaccinated. That's the existing version, it's something that neither AZ not Pfizer really do with antibody immunity that Novavax does to a 50-70% level.
We could conceivably use the 30m spare Novavax doses for our booster programme and then use a single adjusted AZ dose for under 50s.
What are we going to do with the 100m Valneva and 30m Janssen ?
Strategic reserve and then COVAX I'd guess.
Need to find a way of throwing 5m doses at RoI, without the EU noticing.
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
I'm not a creature. It's people like me - in the Modern Metro Left - who will ensure that the plague of softhead National Populism will be beaten as sure as Covid almost is. We are the vaccine.
You are a creature, if I had to specify, I would - to be fair - identify you as more of a weevil or a woodlouse, rather than an actual cockroach, or a plague rat - which is yer actual Seamus Milne or Corbyn
ie the sight of you evinces a tiny wince of distaste, and no more, a brushing of the hand and a turning away.
Your more extreme lefties evoke proper repulsion. I am not sure how Labour fixes this, but the polls are not encouraging. After starting the culture wars, you are now losing them, in the ballot box, even as you seem to win them in the media. It is a fake victory for you
Do extreme right-wingers evoke a similiar revulsion in you?
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
We have full back to normal june 21st boris said so or do you claim he lied?
Why don't we just ramp up the jab programme, get half a million vaccinated every day for the next 65 days, and then everyone will be covered. No need for vaccine passports. End lockdown. Foreign travel might be possible to countries that have been proven not to have any troublesome variants.
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
I'm not a creature. It's people like me - in the Modern Metro Left - who will ensure that the plague of softhead National Populism will be beaten as sure as Covid almost is. We are the vaccine.
You are a creature, if I had to specify, I would - to be fair - identify you as more of a weevil or a woodlouse, rather than an actual cockroach, or a plague rat - which is yer actual Seamus Milne or Corbyn
ie the sight of you evinces a tiny wince of distaste, and no more, a brushing of the hand and a turning away.
Your more extreme lefties evoke proper repulsion. I am not sure how Labour fixes this, but the polls are not encouraging. After starting the culture wars, you are now losing them, in the ballot box, even as you seem to win them in the media. It is a fake victory for you
Kinabalu is far politer than DuraAce, but just as bonkers.
DuraAce is mad, but he is also very smart, and sometimes writes superbly: a truly intriguing persona. I would like to meet him (or her?)
I have met the likes of Kinabalu a million times. Across north London. YAWN
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
Particularly given lateral flow tests administered by non-medics are infamously as inaccurate as a Nick Gibb statement on schools.
Noone under 40 is going to bother with this, we'll just drink at each other's houses for a bit.
No you won't. What bollocks
You will be offered a free vaccination, which takes 10 minutes and is painless but might make you feel a bit poorly for 2 days (or, do nothing at all), a vaccine which protects you from a terrible disease which can ruin your life even if you never go to hospital (see that remarkable story posted by Mr Nabavi, in a prior thread)
Moreover, this vaccine will be a visa to hassle-free travel, going to gyms and theatres, not infecting your parents, or vulnerable people, why the F would you not take it? For free?! What point are you proving? Ha! I don't believe in SCIENCE! Take that, biology!
You will take it. 90% of people will take it. Maybe more
I think he means if the government delays our vaccines as they currently say they will. I find the idea ridiculous that they could even consider introducing vaccine passports while simultaneously fucking off all under 50s by not giving us vaccines.
Happily, it's not going to be an issue. There's a reason Novavax have fucked the EU off today.
Any more news on when Novavax are going to be approved for use ?
No news but it won't be long now I think, maybe a couple of weeks.
Will this release an immediate fresh flood of supply though, or is the cavalry only going to come charging over the hill in time for the Autumn booster campaign?
Both, we have got lots and lots of vaccine doses coming. Our autumn booster will probably be a single dose of AZ adjusted for the various mutations, we'll need around 32m doses to cover what we need. In addition from 2022 onwards we have our CureVac deal which is domestic manufacturing as well.
This whole EU issue is a massive unnecessary distraction, we've got planned domestic supply of around 50m doses per month of which around 10m is already online and another 5m is due soon with a ramp up to 25m per month around June.
In addition we have J&J and Pfizer coming from Belgium which will never put in a vaccine ban.
This is a nasty disease. It would be nice if most of the under 50s weren't left kicking our heels until June or July waiting and waiting and waiting for the supply bottleneck finally to ease. That's what I was concerned about. AZ is still the only domestic product actually in use, which leaves us very reliant on Pfizer in Belgium being allowed to fulfil their contracts. I know that you and others have good reasons for expecting them to continue to be able to do so, but the EU has been going a bit loopy recently and Belgium is a small country which could find itself subject to heavy pressure from more powerful neighbours.
We won't be, I really won't stop repeating myself. The two new vaccines will arrive in April and they will necessitate a very large number of first doses, especially if we continue to leverage a JiT dosing strategy with a 6-8 week gap. We could easily do 3-4m first doses per week of Moderna/Novavax together in April and May to cover all of the remaining groups with first doses and then the following 6-8 weeks with second doses.
What's really interesting is that a single Novavax booster may actually cover off a lot of the variants for people who have already been fully vaccinated. That's the existing version, it's something that neither AZ not Pfizer really do with antibody immunity that Novavax does to a 50-70% level.
We could conceivably use the 30m spare Novavax doses for our booster programme and then use a single adjusted AZ dose for under 50s.
What are we going to do with the 100m Valneva and 30m Janssen ?
Strategic reserve and then COVAX I'd guess.
Need to find a way of throwing 5m doses at RoI, without the EU noticing.
Told you before......weekend holiday packages in NI with a guaranteed vaccination. Brings the tourist dollar in and in addition makes the perfidious eu totally unable to object or expropriate those doses
Why don't we just ramp up the jab programme, get half a million vaccinated every day for the next 65 days, and then everyone will be covered. No need for vaccine passports. End lockdown. Foreign travel might be possible to countries that have been proven not to have any troublesome variants.
I am glad my mates don't act like the EU....if they did I imagine they would be shitting on the carpet and putting my golf clubs through my OLED telly before I knew it.
Bollocks are we friends. Right now the EU is only one small step away from being in the same group as Russia and China. i.e. Never trust them.
Yeah but if they offer indefinite financial services equivalence, a stop to all tests in NI, a greasing of the wheels in Calais, ownership of Bordeaux, and unconditional use of the Balearics every summer; then we might be willing to discuss terms.
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
I'm not a creature. It's people like me - in the Modern Metro Left - who will ensure that the plague of softhead National Populism will be beaten as sure as Covid almost is. We are the vaccine.
You are a creature, if I had to specify, I would - to be fair - identify you as more of a weevil or a woodlouse, rather than an actual cockroach, or a plague rat - which is yer actual Seamus Milne or Corbyn
ie the sight of you evinces a tiny wince of distaste, and no more, a brushing of the hand and a turning away.
Your more extreme lefties evoke proper repulsion. I am not sure how Labour fixes this, but the polls are not encouraging. After starting the culture wars, you are now losing them, in the ballot box, even as you seem to win them in the media. It is a fake victory for you
Do extreme right-wingers evoke a similiar revulsion in you?
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
I'm not a creature. It's people like me - in the Modern Metro Left - who will ensure that the plague of softhead National Populism will be beaten as sure as Covid almost is. We are the vaccine.
You are a creature, if I had to specify, I would - to be fair - identify you as more of a weevil or a woodlouse, rather than an actual cockroach, or a plague rat - which is yer actual Seamus Milne or Corbyn
ie the sight of you evinces a tiny wince of distaste, and no more, a brushing of the hand and a turning away.
Your more extreme lefties evoke proper repulsion. I am not sure how Labour fixes this, but the polls are not encouraging. After starting the culture wars, you are now losing them, in the ballot box, even as you seem to win them in the media. It is a fake victory for you
Kinabalu is far politer than DuraAce, but just as bonkers.
DuraAce is mad, but he is also very smart, and sometimes writes superbly: a truly intriguing persona. I would like to meet him (or her?)
I have met the likes of Kinabalu a million times. Across north London. YAWN
Re: domestic vaccination passports. It seems to me absolutely astonishing (and scary) the seeming blithe acceptance by many of the inevitability of this idea. Labour's position even seems to be that it isn't fair to leave the decision to pubs etc, so it actually has to be made mandatory!
This would be the biggest imposition on civil liberties in UK history (and don't give me all this - "well if you don't want to go out in public, that's your choice nonsense"). The issue isn't even whether people should be de facto forced into getting vaccinated. What people are talking about is a digital passport which will, in effect, track you whenever you enter a crowded public space. This is beyond even the idea of (paper) ID cards, where at least there is no clear trail of where you've been. It is a severe curtailment of the rights of the vaccinated, as well of those who opt out. Just think what the authorities could do with this if they so wished...
And i really am struggling to understand what the supposed health benefit payoff is supposed to be. Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them. And in the vaccinated numbers we are talking about there would be overwhelming herd immunity preventing any occasional transmission to or from unvaccinated people having no particular effect on public health as a whole. So for those who want to remain unvaccinated, it really is largely a personal choice.
Or alternatively (god forbid) the vaccines don't work as hoped. In which case the whole point supposed point of a vaccine passport is moot anyway. Is this that somebody has planted a seed in the politicians heads, and nobody lacks the ability to actually think through either the need or the implications.
If we need them to go abroad, well that's a decision for other countries that we can do little to influence. And that question really is only about the personal choice to get vaccinated, with no additional burden for those who do.
Great post.
No, it wasn't.
@alex_'s key error is the: "Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them." sentence.
The vaccine gives 65-90% protection.
Why would you, as a sensible citizen who has been vaccinated, want to be put at a 10-35% risk of getting covid by idiots who refuse to be vaccinated?
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
We have full back to normal june 21st boris said so or do you claim he lied?
Well, he often lies, and even more often is over-optimistic, but he actually said 21st June at the earliest. It's a reasonably cautious plan, and if all goes well we'll get there, but if not , would you prefer that we stay locked down completely? There's no point whinging, this is about choosing the least of multiple evils.
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
No.
The vaccine itself is the exit route.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
The vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a risk, non trivial, of nasty illness. We don't have enough data yet to assess how much is *truly* risked
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
The Government doesn't seem to be proposing "vaccine passports" in the next few months. Only once everyone has been offered a vaccine. At which point, what is the point?
Re: domestic vaccination passports. It seems to me absolutely astonishing (and scary) the seeming blithe acceptance by many of the inevitability of this idea. Labour's position even seems to be that it isn't fair to leave the decision to pubs etc, so it actually has to be made mandatory!
This would be the biggest imposition on civil liberties in UK history (and don't give me all this - "well if you don't want to go out in public, that's your choice nonsense"). The issue isn't even whether people should be de facto forced into getting vaccinated. What people are talking about is a digital passport which will, in effect, track you whenever you enter a crowded public space. This is beyond even the idea of (paper) ID cards, where at least there is no clear trail of where you've been. It is a severe curtailment of the rights of the vaccinated, as well of those who opt out. Just think what the authorities could do with this if they so wished...
And i really am struggling to understand what the supposed health benefit payoff is supposed to be. Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them. And in the vaccinated numbers we are talking about there would be overwhelming herd immunity preventing any occasional transmission to or from unvaccinated people having no particular effect on public health as a whole. So for those who want to remain unvaccinated, it really is largely a personal choice.
Or alternatively (god forbid) the vaccines don't work as hoped. In which case the whole point supposed point of a vaccine passport is moot anyway. Is this that somebody has planted a seed in the politicians heads, and nobody lacks the ability to actually think through either the need or the implications.
If we need them to go abroad, well that's a decision for other countries that we can do little to influence. And that question really is only about the personal choice to get vaccinated, with no additional burden for those who do.
Great post.
No, it wasn't.
@alex_'s key error is the: "Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them." sentence.
The vaccine gives 65-90% protection.
Why would you, as a sensible citizen who has been vaccinated, want to be put at a 10-35% risk of getting covid by idiots who refuse to be vaccinated?
Because you can't eliminate all risk from life and we need to get back to normal life. Papers please at every threshold isn't normal life
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
I'm not a creature. It's people like me - in the Modern Metro Left - who will ensure that the plague of softhead National Populism will be beaten as sure as Covid almost is. We are the vaccine.
You are a creature, if I had to specify, I would - to be fair - identify you as more of a weevil or a woodlouse, rather than an actual cockroach, or a plague rat - which is yer actual Seamus Milne or Corbyn
ie the sight of you evinces a tiny wince of distaste, and no more, a brushing of the hand and a turning away.
Your more extreme lefties evoke proper repulsion. I am not sure how Labour fixes this, but the polls are not encouraging. After starting the culture wars, you are now losing them, in the ballot box, even as you seem to win them in the media. It is a fake victory for you
Do extreme right-wingers evoke a similiar revulsion in you?
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
We have full back to normal june 21st boris said so or do you claim he lied?
Well, he often lies, and even more often is over-optimistic, but he actually said 21st June at the earliest. It's a reasonably cautious plan, and if all goes well we'll get there, but if not , would you prefer that we stay locked down completely? There's no point whinging, this is about choosing the least of multiple evils.
If we are fully unlocked then that doesn't include artificial useless restrictions
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
No.
The vaccine itself is the exit route.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
The vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a risk, non trivial, of nasty illness. We don't have enough data yet to assess how much is *truly* risked
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
Trouble is that it appears that Hancock has been hijacked by the 'perfect' crowd who basically see their job as to eliminate Covid completely - which is an impossibly stupid idea - rather than having it accepted in the way normal flu is.
The Government appears to be tracking down the route that the only acceptable outcome is that no one gets covid and no one dies of it. It is a ludicrous suggestion nut once it has taken root in Government circles it will be damned near impossible to weed it out again.
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
No.
The vaccine itself is the exit route.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
The vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a risk, non trivial, of nasty illness. We don't have enough data yet to assess how much is *truly* risked
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
The Government doesn't seem to be proposing "vaccine passports" in the next few months. Only once everyone has been offered a vaccine. At which point, what is the point?
To make the last few holdouts choose between not being vaccinated and the pub/theatre/cinema.
Particularly given lateral flow tests administered by non-medics are infamously as inaccurate as a Nick Gibb statement on schools.
Noone under 40 is going to bother with this, we'll just drink at each other's houses for a bit.
No you won't. What bollocks
You will be offered a free vaccination, which takes 10 minutes and is painless but might make you feel a bit poorly for 2 days (or, do nothing at all), a vaccine which protects you from a terrible disease which can ruin your life even if you never go to hospital (see that remarkable story posted by Mr Nabavi, in a prior thread)
Moreover, this vaccine will be a visa to hassle-free travel, going to gyms and theatres, not infecting your parents, or vulnerable people, why the F would you not take it? For free?! What point are you proving? Ha! I don't believe in SCIENCE! Take that, biology!
You will take it. 90% of people will take it. Maybe more
I think he means if the government delays our vaccines as they currently say they will. I find the idea ridiculous that they could even consider introducing vaccine passports while simultaneously fucking off all under 50s by not giving us vaccines.
Happily, it's not going to be an issue. There's a reason Novavax have fucked the EU off today.
Any more news on when Novavax are going to be approved for use ?
No news but it won't be long now I think, maybe a couple of weeks.
Will this release an immediate fresh flood of supply though, or is the cavalry only going to come charging over the hill in time for the Autumn booster campaign?
Both, we have got lots and lots of vaccine doses coming. Our autumn booster will probably be a single dose of AZ adjusted for the various mutations, we'll need around 32m doses to cover what we need. In addition from 2022 onwards we have our CureVac deal which is domestic manufacturing as well.
This whole EU issue is a massive unnecessary distraction, we've got planned domestic supply of around 50m doses per month of which around 10m is already online and another 5m is due soon with a ramp up to 25m per month around June.
In addition we have J&J and Pfizer coming from Belgium which will never put in a vaccine ban.
This is a nasty disease. It would be nice if most of the under 50s weren't left kicking our heels until June or July waiting and waiting and waiting for the supply bottleneck finally to ease. That's what I was concerned about. AZ is still the only domestic product actually in use, which leaves us very reliant on Pfizer in Belgium being allowed to fulfil their contracts. I know that you and others have good reasons for expecting them to continue to be able to do so, but the EU has been going a bit loopy recently and Belgium is a small country which could find itself subject to heavy pressure from more powerful neighbours.
We won't be, I really won't stop repeating myself. The two new vaccines will arrive in April and they will necessitate a very large number of first doses, especially if we continue to leverage a JiT dosing strategy with a 6-8 week gap. We could easily do 3-4m first doses per week of Moderna/Novavax together in April and May to cover all of the remaining groups with first doses and then the following 6-8 weeks with second doses.
What's really interesting is that a single Novavax booster may actually cover off a lot of the variants for people who have already been fully vaccinated. That's the existing version, it's something that neither AZ not Pfizer really do with antibody immunity that Novavax does to a 50-70% level.
We could conceivably use the 30m spare Novavax doses for our booster programme and then use a single adjusted AZ dose for under 50s.
What are we going to do with the 100m Valneva and 30m Janssen ?
Strategic reserve and then COVAX I'd guess.
Need to find a way of throwing 5m doses at RoI, without the EU noticing.
Maybe we should be letting Republic of Ireland citizens have vaccinations in NI? A modern version of vote early and vote often in a way.
It's a long way to drive from County Cork or Kerry, but the Irish could concentrate their doses from the EU geographically.
How does the supply versus efficacy maths change if we ditched the scheduled second doses, transferred those doses to the adult population still waiting for their first doses, and then moved straight on to the vulnerable categories getting their new-and-improved-for-variants booster jab?
Re: domestic vaccination passports. It seems to me absolutely astonishing (and scary) the seeming blithe acceptance by many of the inevitability of this idea. Labour's position even seems to be that it isn't fair to leave the decision to pubs etc, so it actually has to be made mandatory!
This would be the biggest imposition on civil liberties in UK history (and don't give me all this - "well if you don't want to go out in public, that's your choice nonsense"). The issue isn't even whether people should be de facto forced into getting vaccinated. What people are talking about is a digital passport which will, in effect, track you whenever you enter a crowded public space. This is beyond even the idea of (paper) ID cards, where at least there is no clear trail of where you've been. It is a severe curtailment of the rights of the vaccinated, as well of those who opt out. Just think what the authorities could do with this if they so wished...
And i really am struggling to understand what the supposed health benefit payoff is supposed to be. Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them. And in the vaccinated numbers we are talking about there would be overwhelming herd immunity preventing any occasional transmission to or from unvaccinated people having no particular effect on public health as a whole. So for those who want to remain unvaccinated, it really is largely a personal choice.
Or alternatively (god forbid) the vaccines don't work as hoped. In which case the whole point supposed point of a vaccine passport is moot anyway. Is this that somebody has planted a seed in the politicians heads, and nobody lacks the ability to actually think through either the need or the implications.
If we need them to go abroad, well that's a decision for other countries that we can do little to influence. And that question really is only about the personal choice to get vaccinated, with no additional burden for those who do.
Great post.
No, it wasn't.
@alex_'s key error is the: "Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them." sentence.
The vaccine gives 65-90% protection.
Why would you, as a sensible citizen who has been vaccinated, want to be put at a 10-35% risk of getting covid by idiots who refuse to be vaccinated?
Papers please at every threshold isn't normal life
Why don't we just ramp up the jab programme, get half a million vaccinated every day for the next 65 days, and then everyone will be covered. No need for vaccine passports. End lockdown. Foreign travel might be possible to countries that have been proven not to have any troublesome variants.
Not enough supply....
And... what do you do about the anti-vaxxer refusniks?
Particularly given lateral flow tests administered by non-medics are infamously as inaccurate as a Nick Gibb statement on schools.
Noone under 40 is going to bother with this, we'll just drink at each other's houses for a bit.
No you won't. What bollocks
You will be offered a free vaccination, which takes 10 minutes and is painless but might make you feel a bit poorly for 2 days (or, do nothing at all), a vaccine which protects you from a terrible disease which can ruin your life even if you never go to hospital (see that remarkable story posted by Mr Nabavi, in a prior thread)
Moreover, this vaccine will be a visa to hassle-free travel, going to gyms and theatres, not infecting your parents, or vulnerable people, why the F would you not take it? For free?! What point are you proving? Ha! I don't believe in SCIENCE! Take that, biology!
You will take it. 90% of people will take it. Maybe more
I think he means if the government delays our vaccines as they currently say they will. I find the idea ridiculous that they could even consider introducing vaccine passports while simultaneously fucking off all under 50s by not giving us vaccines.
Happily, it's not going to be an issue. There's a reason Novavax have fucked the EU off today.
Any more news on when Novavax are going to be approved for use ?
No news but it won't be long now I think, maybe a couple of weeks.
Will this release an immediate fresh flood of supply though, or is the cavalry only going to come charging over the hill in time for the Autumn booster campaign?
Both, we have got lots and lots of vaccine doses coming. Our autumn booster will probably be a single dose of AZ adjusted for the various mutations, we'll need around 32m doses to cover what we need. In addition from 2022 onwards we have our CureVac deal which is domestic manufacturing as well.
This whole EU issue is a massive unnecessary distraction, we've got planned domestic supply of around 50m doses per month of which around 10m is already online and another 5m is due soon with a ramp up to 25m per month around June.
In addition we have J&J and Pfizer coming from Belgium which will never put in a vaccine ban.
This is a nasty disease. It would be nice if most of the under 50s weren't left kicking our heels until June or July waiting and waiting and waiting for the supply bottleneck finally to ease. That's what I was concerned about. AZ is still the only domestic product actually in use, which leaves us very reliant on Pfizer in Belgium being allowed to fulfil their contracts. I know that you and others have good reasons for expecting them to continue to be able to do so, but the EU has been going a bit loopy recently and Belgium is a small country which could find itself subject to heavy pressure from more powerful neighbours.
We won't be, I really won't stop repeating myself. The two new vaccines will arrive in April and they will necessitate a very large number of first doses, especially if we continue to leverage a JiT dosing strategy with a 6-8 week gap. We could easily do 3-4m first doses per week of Moderna/Novavax together in April and May to cover all of the remaining groups with first doses and then the following 6-8 weeks with second doses.
What's really interesting is that a single Novavax booster may actually cover off a lot of the variants for people who have already been fully vaccinated. That's the existing version, it's something that neither AZ not Pfizer really do with antibody immunity that Novavax does to a 50-70% level.
We could conceivably use the 30m spare Novavax doses for our booster programme and then use a single adjusted AZ dose for under 50s.
What are we going to do with the 100m Valneva and 30m Janssen ?
Strategic reserve and then COVAX I'd guess.
Need to find a way of throwing 5m doses at RoI, without the EU noticing.
It's already happening, just that the RoI people are being turned away as ineligible.
But the system is letting them book, so once all NI people are jabbed, no need to turn the rest away. Let them vote with their feet and get jabbed. Leave the EU doses for the ROI people who can't travel.
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
No.
The vaccine itself is the exit route.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
The vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a risk, non trivial, of nasty illness. We don't have enough data yet to assess how much is *truly* risked
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
The Government doesn't seem to be proposing "vaccine passports" in the next few months. Only once everyone has been offered a vaccine. At which point, what is the point?
To make the last few holdouts choose between not being vaccinated and the pub/theatre/cinema.
A better plan would be to make the unvaccinated to wear a badge and we get to hunt them with vaccine dart guns. Would certainly be more fun and they could make money off hunting licences
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
I'm not a creature. It's people like me - in the Modern Metro Left - who will ensure that the plague of softhead National Populism will be beaten as sure as Covid almost is. We are the vaccine.
You are a creature, if I had to specify, I would - to be fair - identify you as more of a weevil or a woodlouse, rather than an actual cockroach, or a plague rat - which is yer actual Seamus Milne or Corbyn
ie the sight of you evinces a tiny wince of distaste, and no more, a brushing of the hand and a turning away.
Your more extreme lefties evoke proper repulsion. I am not sure how Labour fixes this, but the polls are not encouraging. After starting the culture wars, you are now losing them, in the ballot box, even as you seem to win them in the media. It is a fake victory for you
Kinabalu is far politer than DuraAce, but just as bonkers.
DuraAce is mad, but he is also very smart, and sometimes writes superbly: a truly intriguing persona. I would like to meet him (or her?)
I have met the likes of Kinabalu a million times. Across north London. YAWN
Didnt you marry a kinablu?
No, much more imaginative, open-minded and unpredictable
I can predict every single opinion held by Kinabalu from about a light year away. Ineffably tedious
Incidentally, talking of extreme opinions, I have just read the most extraordinary book about Nazism, and the wave of suicides that befell Hitler's Germany, as it crumpled into defeat
PROMISE ME YOU'LL SHOOT YOURSELF
Written by a superbly gifted German historian, and analysing apparently unexamined evidence, he speaks of entire towns where half the population jumped in the river, whole families hanging themselves in orchards, mothers forcing their babies underwater, it is harrowing, but incredible. Even when there was no direct threat.
His thesis is that they were overcome with guilt at their Nazism. Which was about to be uncovered by the Allies. Better to be dead.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
The vast majority of the punters in pubs or theatres or whatever are going to be vaccinated, regardless of whether they have a "vaccine passport" or not. That number grows by the day.
Therefore I remain unconvinced that vaccine passports will make any significant difference to our COVID death count.
As stated by others, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
Particularly given lateral flow tests administered by non-medics are infamously as inaccurate as a Nick Gibb statement on schools.
Noone under 40 is going to bother with this, we'll just drink at each other's houses for a bit.
No you won't. What bollocks
You will be offered a free vaccination, which takes 10 minutes and is painless but might make you feel a bit poorly for 2 days (or, do nothing at all), a vaccine which protects you from a terrible disease which can ruin your life even if you never go to hospital (see that remarkable story posted by Mr Nabavi, in a prior thread)
Moreover, this vaccine will be a visa to hassle-free travel, going to gyms and theatres, not infecting your parents, or vulnerable people, why the F would you not take it? For free?! What point are you proving? Ha! I don't believe in SCIENCE! Take that, biology!
You will take it. 90% of people will take it. Maybe more
I think he means if the government delays our vaccines as they currently say they will. I find the idea ridiculous that they could even consider introducing vaccine passports while simultaneously fucking off all under 50s by not giving us vaccines.
Happily, it's not going to be an issue. There's a reason Novavax have fucked the EU off today.
Any more news on when Novavax are going to be approved for use ?
No news but it won't be long now I think, maybe a couple of weeks.
Will this release an immediate fresh flood of supply though, or is the cavalry only going to come charging over the hill in time for the Autumn booster campaign?
Both, we have got lots and lots of vaccine doses coming. Our autumn booster will probably be a single dose of AZ adjusted for the various mutations, we'll need around 32m doses to cover what we need. In addition from 2022 onwards we have our CureVac deal which is domestic manufacturing as well.
This whole EU issue is a massive unnecessary distraction, we've got planned domestic supply of around 50m doses per month of which around 10m is already online and another 5m is due soon with a ramp up to 25m per month around June.
In addition we have J&J and Pfizer coming from Belgium which will never put in a vaccine ban.
This is a nasty disease. It would be nice if most of the under 50s weren't left kicking our heels until June or July waiting and waiting and waiting for the supply bottleneck finally to ease. That's what I was concerned about. AZ is still the only domestic product actually in use, which leaves us very reliant on Pfizer in Belgium being allowed to fulfil their contracts. I know that you and others have good reasons for expecting them to continue to be able to do so, but the EU has been going a bit loopy recently and Belgium is a small country which could find itself subject to heavy pressure from more powerful neighbours.
We won't be, I really won't stop repeating myself. The two new vaccines will arrive in April and they will necessitate a very large number of first doses, especially if we continue to leverage a JiT dosing strategy with a 6-8 week gap. We could easily do 3-4m first doses per week of Moderna/Novavax together in April and May to cover all of the remaining groups with first doses and then the following 6-8 weeks with second doses.
What's really interesting is that a single Novavax booster may actually cover off a lot of the variants for people who have already been fully vaccinated. That's the existing version, it's something that neither AZ not Pfizer really do with antibody immunity that Novavax does to a 50-70% level.
We could conceivably use the 30m spare Novavax doses for our booster programme and then use a single adjusted AZ dose for under 50s.
What are we going to do with the 100m Valneva and 30m Janssen ?
Strategic reserve and then COVAX I'd guess.
Need to find a way of throwing 5m doses at RoI, without the EU noticing.
Re: domestic vaccination passports. It seems to me absolutely astonishing (and scary) the seeming blithe acceptance by many of the inevitability of this idea. Labour's position even seems to be that it isn't fair to leave the decision to pubs etc, so it actually has to be made mandatory!
This would be the biggest imposition on civil liberties in UK history (and don't give me all this - "well if you don't want to go out in public, that's your choice nonsense"). The issue isn't even whether people should be de facto forced into getting vaccinated. What people are talking about is a digital passport which will, in effect, track you whenever you enter a crowded public space. This is beyond even the idea of (paper) ID cards, where at least there is no clear trail of where you've been. It is a severe curtailment of the rights of the vaccinated, as well of those who opt out. Just think what the authorities could do with this if they so wished...
And i really am struggling to understand what the supposed health benefit payoff is supposed to be. Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them. And in the vaccinated numbers we are talking about there would be overwhelming herd immunity preventing any occasional transmission to or from unvaccinated people having no particular effect on public health as a whole. So for those who want to remain unvaccinated, it really is largely a personal choice.
Or alternatively (god forbid) the vaccines don't work as hoped. In which case the whole point supposed point of a vaccine passport is moot anyway. Is this that somebody has planted a seed in the politicians heads, and nobody lacks the ability to actually think through either the need or the implications.
If we need them to go abroad, well that's a decision for other countries that we can do little to influence. And that question really is only about the personal choice to get vaccinated, with no additional burden for those who do.
Great post.
No, it wasn't.
@alex_'s key error is the: "Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them." sentence.
The vaccine gives 65-90% protection.
Why would you, as a sensible citizen who has been vaccinated, want to be put at a 10-35% risk of getting covid by idiots who refuse to be vaccinated?
It gives a 100% - or as near as damn it - protection against serious illness and hospitalisation. so yes, I would take that any day rather than having it used as an excuse to force ID cards on us.
Re: domestic vaccination passports. It seems to me absolutely astonishing (and scary) the seeming blithe acceptance by many of the inevitability of this idea. Labour's position even seems to be that it isn't fair to leave the decision to pubs etc, so it actually has to be made mandatory!
This would be the biggest imposition on civil liberties in UK history (and don't give me all this - "well if you don't want to go out in public, that's your choice nonsense"). The issue isn't even whether people should be de facto forced into getting vaccinated. What people are talking about is a digital passport which will, in effect, track you whenever you enter a crowded public space. This is beyond even the idea of (paper) ID cards, where at least there is no clear trail of where you've been. It is a severe curtailment of the rights of the vaccinated, as well of those who opt out. Just think what the authorities could do with this if they so wished...
And i really am struggling to understand what the supposed health benefit payoff is supposed to be. Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them. And in the vaccinated numbers we are talking about there would be overwhelming herd immunity preventing any occasional transmission to or from unvaccinated people having no particular effect on public health as a whole. So for those who want to remain unvaccinated, it really is largely a personal choice.
Or alternatively (god forbid) the vaccines don't work as hoped. In which case the whole point supposed point of a vaccine passport is moot anyway. Is this that somebody has planted a seed in the politicians heads, and nobody lacks the ability to actually think through either the need or the implications.
If we need them to go abroad, well that's a decision for other countries that we can do little to influence. And that question really is only about the personal choice to get vaccinated, with no additional burden for those who do.
Great post.
No, it wasn't.
@alex_'s key error is the: "Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them." sentence.
The vaccine gives 65-90% protection.
Why would you, as a sensible citizen who has been vaccinated, want to be put at a 10-35% risk of getting covid by idiots who refuse to be vaccinated?
It gives a 100% - or as near as damn it - protection against serious illness and hospitalisation. so yes, I would take that any day rather than having it used as an excuse to force ID cards on us.
It offers enough protection that covid deaths would be below flu deaths. We dont insist on flu jab passports
Not quite sure why people are going around in circles on this
1) There is no imminent plan for any form of official vaccine certificates 2) The British state does not move quickly when it comes to paperwork 3) Which means the earliest that anything could be brought in is probably the autumn 4) By which time the Covid pandemic will almost certainly be over in the UK 5) So either something will be launched which no one wants businesses to implement, or it will be quietly dropped 6) Business doesn't want to implement unnecessary checks 7) There will be no meaningful use for any launched vaccine certificates 8) It will be quietly dropped
"“China’s strategy, from the start, was to have no infections at all… Still in Beijing, where we have hardly any cases, every time you step outside your door you have to use a smartphone to scan a QR code — every shop, every taxi, every bus, every metro station. You have no privacy at all — it’s all built around this electronic system of contact tracing. To leave Beijing you have to have a Covid test, to come back in you have to have a Covid test…. We basically don’t have the virus here, but the flip side is that they are keeping this place locked down as tight as a drum… It’s very hard to know where Covid containment starts and a Communist police state with an obsession with control kicks in.”"
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
No.
The vaccine itself is the exit route.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
The vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a risk, non trivial, of nasty illness. We don't have enough data yet to assess how much is *truly* risked
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
The Government doesn't seem to be proposing "vaccine passports" in the next few months. Only once everyone has been offered a vaccine. At which point, what is the point?
To make the last few holdouts choose between not being vaccinated and the pub/theatre/cinema.
"The last few holdouts" are not important in a highly vaccinated population. That's what herd immunity is all about. Once there is a high degree of immunity within the population you get two things. 1) the chances of the non-vaccinated catching the virus (or even those for who the vaccine doesn't work) become increasingly small 2) even where there is transmission, the chances of it escalating into a cluster are very small as well. You just get brief pockets of infection which disappear almost as soon as they arrive.
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
No.
The vaccine itself is the exit route.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
The vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a risk, non trivial, of nasty illness. We don't have enough data yet to assess how much is *truly* risked
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
The Government doesn't seem to be proposing "vaccine passports" in the next few months. Only once everyone has been offered a vaccine. At which point, what is the point?
To make the last few holdouts choose between not being vaccinated and the pub/theatre/cinema.
A better plan would be to make the unvaccinated to wear a badge and we get to hunt them with vaccine dart guns. Would certainly be more fun and they could make money off hunting licences
We could make them all live somewhere crap like Luton. £50 for 60 mins with a vaccine dart gun, sold at the train station.
"“China’s strategy, from the start, was to have no infections at all… Still in Beijing, where we have hardly any cases, every time you step outside your door you have to use a smartphone to scan a QR code — every shop, every taxi, every bus, every metro station. You have no privacy at all — it’s all built around this electronic system of contact tracing. To leave Beijing you have to have a Covid test, to come back in you have to have a Covid test…. We basically don’t have the virus here, but the flip side is that they are keeping this place locked down as tight as a drum… It’s very hard to know where Covid containment starts and a Communist police state with an obsession with control kicks in.”"
We the people don't. The government of whatever colour and the civil service would love it
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
The vast majority of the punters in pubs or theatres or whatever are going to be vaccinated, regardless of whether they have a "vaccine passport" or not. That number grows by the day.
Therefore I remain unconvinced that vaccine passports will make any significant difference to our COVID death count.
As stated by others, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
They may not make a significant difference to the overall death count but they would have made a very significant difference to anyone who dies as a result of their absence.
What, honestly, is the objection? When I go to a pub or a restaurant I would like to feel reasonably sure that that I am not going to be exposed to covid.
Great pic, but there’s a whole load more digging still to be done underneath. Would be brilliant if they can get her floated on Monday’s high tide, but I’m still not optimistic.
Flags act as emblems of your idea of a country. In Scotland, many people use the Saltire as an emblem of what they hope Scotland will become. In England, many people use the Union Jack as an emblem of what they believe the best of Britain once was and could be again, or as a badge of shame of the worst that Britain was or is. We need to relax and understand that a complex society will have complex views of flags, and respect each other.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
Yes, point 2 is crucial. As I understand the anti-card view, it's that the world is divided between the elderly (who may die) and everyone else (who will be fine even if infected). It's simply not true.
* The disease can ruin your life at any age * If you crowd together indoors with lots of unvaccinated people, the disease WILL spread again * If the disease starts spreading again, we'll end up with another lockdown.
Why does anyone want that??? For the sake of not carrying a card so nobody can track how we use it, when most of us use credit cards all the time and any competent intelligence agency can track us far better with those?
Not often that Leon and Richard and I totally agree! Government of National Unity...
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
No.
The vaccine itself is the exit route.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
The vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a risk, non trivial, of nasty illness. We don't have enough data yet to assess how much is *truly* risked
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
The Government doesn't seem to be proposing "vaccine passports" in the next few months. Only once everyone has been offered a vaccine. At which point, what is the point?
To make the last few holdouts choose between not being vaccinated and the pub/theatre/cinema.
"The last few holdouts" are not important in a highly vaccinated population. That's what herd immunity is all about. Once there is a high degree of immunity within the population you get two things. 1) the chances of the non-vaccinated catching the virus (or even those for who the vaccine doesn't work) become increasingly small 2) even where there is transmission, the chances of it escalating into a cluster are very small as well. You just get brief pockets of infection which disappear almost as soon as they arrive.
I’m worried “the last few holdouts” will be more like half of the very young. Not because they don’t support the idea of a vaccine on theory, but because they can’t be arsed. Like voting.
Re: domestic vaccination passports. It seems to me absolutely astonishing (and scary) the seeming blithe acceptance by many of the inevitability of this idea. Labour's position even seems to be that it isn't fair to leave the decision to pubs etc, so it actually has to be made mandatory!
This would be the biggest imposition on civil liberties in UK history (and don't give me all this - "well if you don't want to go out in public, that's your choice nonsense"). The issue isn't even whether people should be de facto forced into getting vaccinated. What people are talking about is a digital passport which will, in effect, track you whenever you enter a crowded public space. This is beyond even the idea of (paper) ID cards, where at least there is no clear trail of where you've been. It is a severe curtailment of the rights of the vaccinated, as well of those who opt out. Just think what the authorities could do with this if they so wished...
And i really am struggling to understand what the supposed health benefit payoff is supposed to be. Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them. And in the vaccinated numbers we are talking about there would be overwhelming herd immunity preventing any occasional transmission to or from unvaccinated people having no particular effect on public health as a whole. So for those who want to remain unvaccinated, it really is largely a personal choice.
Or alternatively (god forbid) the vaccines don't work as hoped. In which case the whole point supposed point of a vaccine passport is moot anyway. Is this that somebody has planted a seed in the politicians heads, and nobody lacks the ability to actually think through either the need or the implications.
If we need them to go abroad, well that's a decision for other countries that we can do little to influence. And that question really is only about the personal choice to get vaccinated, with no additional burden for those who do.
Great post.
No, it wasn't.
@alex_'s key error is the: "Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them." sentence.
The vaccine gives 65-90% protection.
Why would you, as a sensible citizen who has been vaccinated, want to be put at a 10-35% risk of getting covid by idiots who refuse to be vaccinated?
Every single time I've previously been in a pub I've been at risk of catching an infectious disease from someone in the pub. The one time I did have the flu in a bad way maybe that's how I caught it, or else at the fancy hot chocolate place, or on the train.
The 90% risk reduction from the vaccine essentially makes the Covid risks equivalent to flu risks. It isn't ever going to be zero risk. But I think that risk, once vaccinated, is low enough that I'm not prepared to accept an erosion of my civil liberties in a futile attempt to reduce that risk to zero.
"“China’s strategy, from the start, was to have no infections at all… Still in Beijing, where we have hardly any cases, every time you step outside your door you have to use a smartphone to scan a QR code — every shop, every taxi, every bus, every metro station. You have no privacy at all — it’s all built around this electronic system of contact tracing. To leave Beijing you have to have a Covid test, to come back in you have to have a Covid test…. We basically don’t have the virus here, but the flip side is that they are keeping this place locked down as tight as a drum… It’s very hard to know where Covid containment starts and a Communist police state with an obsession with control kicks in.”"
We the people don't. The government of whatever colour and the civil service would love it
Can anyone explain to me why a certificate showing you've been jabbed or tested is a major infringement of your civil liberties, but a card shown by a youngster to prove they're over 18, or a bus pass to prove you're over 65, or an Oyster card, isn't?
Quite.
I am honestly mystified by the outrage at the idea we might have to flash our phone at a bouncer for 5 seconds, to get in a pub, when we have all endured being locked down at home FOR MOST OF A YEAR without demur
These apps and passports are an exit route. They are not ideal, but plagues are not ideal. Hopefully, in a year or so, we can junk them, and return to normality, or something close
People have to accept we have been through a history-changing event, like a world war. Liberties are infringed in wars, to ensure national survival. Necessarily. And then they are re-won when we earn the Peace.
No.
The vaccine itself is the exit route.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
The vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a risk, non trivial, of nasty illness. We don't have enough data yet to assess how much is *truly* risked
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
The Government doesn't seem to be proposing "vaccine passports" in the next few months. Only once everyone has been offered a vaccine. At which point, what is the point?
To make the last few holdouts choose between not being vaccinated and the pub/theatre/cinema.
A better plan would be to make the unvaccinated to wear a badge and we get to hunt them with vaccine dart guns. Would certainly be more fun and they could make money off hunting licences
We could make them all live somewhere crap like Luton. £50 for 60 mins with a vaccine dart gun, sold at the train station.
Bedford would be better then you can bag a mike smithson by accident
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
The vast majority of the punters in pubs or theatres or whatever are going to be vaccinated, regardless of whether they have a "vaccine passport" or not. That number grows by the day.
Therefore I remain unconvinced that vaccine passports will make any significant difference to our COVID death count.
As stated by others, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
They may not make a significant difference to the overall death count but they would have made a very significant difference to anyone who dies as a result of their absence.
What, honestly, is the objection? When I go to a pub or a restaurant I would like to feel reasonably sure that that I am not going to be exposed to covid.
Is that really so outrageous?
Who's dying in your scenario? An unvaccinated person?
That's a risk they've taken by refusing a vaccine.
If you're suggesting that vaccinated people are endangered by non-vaccinated people, please show your working because I don't get it.
You're vaccinated. You have almost 100% protection against severe disease and 70%+ protection against any symptoms at all. An unvaccinated person with COVID, as unlikely as that will be in a highly vaccinated population, is of little risk to you.
Re: domestic vaccination passports. It seems to me absolutely astonishing (and scary) the seeming blithe acceptance by many of the inevitability of this idea. Labour's position even seems to be that it isn't fair to leave the decision to pubs etc, so it actually has to be made mandatory!
This would be the biggest imposition on civil liberties in UK history (and don't give me all this - "well if you don't want to go out in public, that's your choice nonsense"). The issue isn't even whether people should be de facto forced into getting vaccinated. What people are talking about is a digital passport which will, in effect, track you whenever you enter a crowded public space. This is beyond even the idea of (paper) ID cards, where at least there is no clear trail of where you've been. It is a severe curtailment of the rights of the vaccinated, as well of those who opt out. Just think what the authorities could do with this if they so wished...
And i really am struggling to understand what the supposed health benefit payoff is supposed to be. Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them. And in the vaccinated numbers we are talking about there would be overwhelming herd immunity preventing any occasional transmission to or from unvaccinated people having no particular effect on public health as a whole. So for those who want to remain unvaccinated, it really is largely a personal choice.
Or alternatively (god forbid) the vaccines don't work as hoped. In which case the whole point supposed point of a vaccine passport is moot anyway. Is this that somebody has planted a seed in the politicians heads, and nobody lacks the ability to actually think through either the need or the implications.
If we need them to go abroad, well that's a decision for other countries that we can do little to influence. And that question really is only about the personal choice to get vaccinated, with no additional burden for those who do.
Great post.
No, it wasn't.
@alex_'s key error is the: "Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them." sentence.
The vaccine gives 65-90% protection.
Why would you, as a sensible citizen who has been vaccinated, want to be put at a 10-35% risk of getting covid by idiots who refuse to be vaccinated?
Because you can't eliminate all risk from life and we need to get back to normal life. Papers please at every threshold isn't normal life
It also seems to give damn near 100% protection against serious illness. If people were demanding protection (unlikely) infection, and even then only mild illness at worst, you wonder how we ever made it to this point as a society. (The vast majority of) people aren't getting vaccinations to avoid getting Covid in isolation. They are getting vaccinations to avoid getting seriously ill of Covid.
OK, so just because some people don't want to show a card demonstrating they've been jabbed, I'm not allowed to go to a venue with like-minded people who are happy to show such a card, and who want the confidence that everyone else there has also been jabbed or tested.
How the hell is that arguable on civil liberty grounds?
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
Yes, point 2 is crucial. As I understand the anti-card view, it's that the world is divided between the elderly (who may die) and everyone else (who will be fine even if infected). It's simply not true.
* The disease can ruin your life at any age * If you crowd together indoors with lots of unvaccinated people, the disease WILL spread again * If the disease starts spreading again, we'll end up with another lockdown.
Why does anyone want that??? For the sake of not carrying a card so nobody can track how we use it, when most of us use credit cards all the time and any competent intelligence agency can track us far better with those?
Not often that Leon and Richard and I totally agree! Government of National Unity...
I am quite frankly staggered that this needs to be said, but here goes.
Herd immunity stops widespread infection.
The odd person might catch Covid. A very unlucky person may die from it.
The combination of vaccination and really quite significant levels of prior infection in the population will prevent rampant spread.
OK, so just because some people don't want to show a card demonstrating they've been jabbed, I'm not allowed to go to a venue with like-minded people who are happy to show such a card, and who want the confidence that everyone else there has also been jabbed or tested.
How the hell is that arguable on civil liberty grounds?
I don't care about the vaccine passport per se, I just don't understand what people think they will achieve.
I'm not arguing against them on civil liberties grounds, I'm arguing against them on common sense grounds.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
The vast majority of the punters in pubs or theatres or whatever are going to be vaccinated, regardless of whether they have a "vaccine passport" or not. That number grows by the day.
Therefore I remain unconvinced that vaccine passports will make any significant difference to our COVID death count.
As stated by others, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
They may not make a significant difference to the overall death count but they would have made a very significant difference to anyone who dies as a result of their absence.
What, honestly, is the objection? When I go to a pub or a restaurant I would like to feel reasonably sure that that I am not going to be exposed to covid.
Is that really so outrageous?
After herd immunity has kicked in, your desire to be a minuscule bit safer is a) not worth the civil liberties imposition that either continued restrictions on individuals lives and b) not significant enough to change behaviour encouraging business to impose it.
"“China’s strategy, from the start, was to have no infections at all… Still in Beijing, where we have hardly any cases, every time you step outside your door you have to use a smartphone to scan a QR code — every shop, every taxi, every bus, every metro station. You have no privacy at all — it’s all built around this electronic system of contact tracing. To leave Beijing you have to have a Covid test, to come back in you have to have a Covid test…. We basically don’t have the virus here, but the flip side is that they are keeping this place locked down as tight as a drum… It’s very hard to know where Covid containment starts and a Communist police state with an obsession with control kicks in.”"
We the people don't. The government of whatever colour and the civil service would love it
You speak for us all?
You want china style tracking which was what the post I replied to was? You want to be unable to buy a train ticket because your social credit score dips to low? People like me resist all tracking as much as possible because its just the start. You let them do one thing then they want another and a few years down the line we are china. The time to resist is before they start down that route not at the last step
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
Yes, point 2 is crucial. As I understand the anti-card view, it's that the world is divided between the elderly (who may die) and everyone else (who will be fine even if infected). It's simply not true.
* The disease can ruin your life at any age * If you crowd together indoors with lots of unvaccinated people, the disease WILL spread again * If the disease starts spreading again, we'll end up with another lockdown.
Why does anyone want that??? For the sake of not carrying a card so nobody can track how we use it, when most of us use credit cards all the time and any competent intelligence agency can track us far better with those?
Not often that Leon and Richard and I totally agree! Government of National Unity...
We know that you've always been a massive fan of ID cards, so it's hardly surprising that you are in favour of this. Separate that out for one moment and pretend that Covid never existed. You do realise that there are plenty of other areas of life, health related or otherwise, where the same arguments could have been employed. How low does the risk have to become before you realise that you are elevating Covid unjustifiably as something uniquely dangerous, when in a largely immune population it simply isn't?
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
We have full back to normal june 21st boris said so or do you claim he lied?
Well, he often lies, and even more often is over-optimistic, but he actually said 21st June at the earliest. It's a reasonably cautious plan, and if all goes well we'll get there, but if not , would you prefer that we stay locked down completely? There's no point whinging, this is about choosing the least of multiple evils.
If we are fully unlocked then that doesn't include artificial useless restrictions
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
The vast majority of the punters in pubs or theatres or whatever are going to be vaccinated, regardless of whether they have a "vaccine passport" or not. That number grows by the day.
Therefore I remain unconvinced that vaccine passports will make any significant difference to our COVID death count.
As stated by others, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
They may not make a significant difference to the overall death count but they would have made a very significant difference to anyone who dies as a result of their absence.
What, honestly, is the objection? When I go to a pub or a restaurant I would like to feel reasonably sure that that I am not going to be exposed to covid.
Is that really so outrageous?
Who's dying in your scenario? An unvaccinated person?
That's a risk they've taken by refusing a vaccine.
If you're suggesting that vaccinated people are endangered by non-vaccinated people, please show your working because I don't get it.
You're vaccinated. You have almost 100% protection against severe disease and 70%+ protection against any symptoms at all. An unvaccinated person with COVID, as unlikely as that will be in a highly vaccinated population, is of little risk to you.
+ the unvaccinated will be protected by the vast majority of people who are vaccinated.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
Yes, point 2 is crucial. As I understand the anti-card view, it's that the world is divided between the elderly (who may die) and everyone else (who will be fine even if infected). It's simply not true.
* The disease can ruin your life at any age * If you crowd together indoors with lots of unvaccinated people, the disease WILL spread again * If the disease starts spreading again, we'll end up with another lockdown.
Why does anyone want that??? For the sake of not carrying a card so nobody can track how we use it, when most of us use credit cards all the time and any competent intelligence agency can track us far better with those?
Not often that Leon and Richard and I totally agree! Government of National Unity...
I am quite frankly staggered that this needs to be said, but here goes.
Herd immunity stops widespread infection.
The odd person might catch Covid. A very unlucky person may die from it.
The combination of vaccination and really quite significant levels of prior infection in the population will prevent rampant spread.
Just look at Israel.
That's the Israel which has Covid passports, presumably? Not some other Israel I haven't heard of?
OK, so just because some people don't want to show a card demonstrating they've been jabbed, I'm not allowed to go to a venue with like-minded people who are happy to show such a card, and who want the confidence that everyone else there has also been jabbed or tested.
How the hell is that arguable on civil liberty grounds?
No one is objecting to a business doing it, we are objecting to government mandate that all businesses must do it. If a pub or theatre wants to do it fine, I just go to a pub or theatre that doesnt and you can go to one that does.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
The vast majority of the punters in pubs or theatres or whatever are going to be vaccinated, regardless of whether they have a "vaccine passport" or not. That number grows by the day.
Therefore I remain unconvinced that vaccine passports will make any significant difference to our COVID death count.
As stated by others, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
They may not make a significant difference to the overall death count but they would have made a very significant difference to anyone who dies as a result of their absence.
What, honestly, is the objection? When I go to a pub or a restaurant I would like to feel reasonably sure that that I am not going to be exposed to covid.
Is that really so outrageous?
After herd immunity has kicked in, your desire to be a minuscule bit safer is a) not worth the civil liberties imposition that either continued restrictions on individuals lives and b) not significant enough to change behaviour encouraging business to impose it.
I think it’s more complex than that. You’re right in principle, but in practice I see a role for the threat of using vaccine passports to ensure the young (who don’t feel in danger and might not get round to both jabs) take the time to get done, thus ensuring that herd immunity happens.
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
Yes, point 2 is crucial. As I understand the anti-card view, it's that the world is divided between the elderly (who may die) and everyone else (who will be fine even if infected). It's simply not true.
* The disease can ruin your life at any age * If you crowd together indoors with lots of unvaccinated people, the disease WILL spread again * If the disease starts spreading again, we'll end up with another lockdown.
Why does anyone want that??? For the sake of not carrying a card so nobody can track how we use it, when most of us use credit cards all the time and any competent intelligence agency can track us far better with those?
Not often that Leon and Richard and I totally agree! Government of National Unity...
We know that you've always been a massive fan of ID cards, so it's hardly surprising that you are in favour of this. Separate that out for one moment and pretend that Covid never existed. You do realise that there are plenty of other areas of life, health related or otherwise, where the same arguments could have been employed. How low does the risk have to become before you realise that you are elevating Covid unjustifiably as something uniquely dangerous, when in a largely immune population it simply isn't?
It has been utterly fascinating seeing how people have reacted disproportionately in response to novel risk. Far too many have decided that everyone's civil liberties are worth ditching to secure what they perceive to be a little bit more safety. I might write a paper on novel risk bias and go for a prize or something.....
OK, so just because some people don't want to show a card demonstrating they've been jabbed, I'm not allowed to go to a venue with like-minded people who are happy to show such a card, and who want the confidence that everyone else there has also been jabbed or tested.
How the hell is that arguable on civil liberty grounds?
It's cause you're on Twitter, which I've now come off and am much calmer as a result.
No-one in the real world is talking incessantly about flags. Everyone on Twitter is.
Confession: I have a flegpole.
It came with the house when we bought it and I initially thought I was going to take it out but it endures.
I have on occasion flown the following flegs:
Leeds United Smiley Jolly Roger Naval ensign of the Soviet Union Bisected Black and Red flag as popularised by the anarchists of the Bologna Insurrection Green and white of Fermanagh
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
So?
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
Pub owners might not want it. But if the alternative is that they either stay closed altogether, or have to impose draconian social distancing rules, then they might prefer this solution.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
We have full back to normal june 21st boris said so or do you claim he lied?
Well, he often lies, and even more often is over-optimistic, but he actually said 21st June at the earliest. It's a reasonably cautious plan, and if all goes well we'll get there, but if not , would you prefer that we stay locked down completely? There's no point whinging, this is about choosing the least of multiple evils.
If we are fully unlocked then that doesn't include artificial useless restrictions
No, but they wouldn't be artificial, or useless.
Are you arguing people should show evidence of having a flu jab as well. I predict next year there will be far more flu deaths than covid but you never demanded flu passports
What's the rational reason for requiring a vaccine to go into a pub? Once the vulnerable are vaccinated the NHS is no longer in any danger of collapse. At that point refusing a vaccine is just a personal choice, and a personal risk.
1. The vaccines won't give 100% protection, just a mere 90+% [if we're lucky]. If everyone going to the venue is vaccinated, you've got the mathematical product of the protection factor for each chain of potential infection (90% protection one stage, 99% two stages, 99.9% three stages, etc); if lots of them aren't, then you've lost that.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
Yes, point 2 is crucial. As I understand the anti-card view, it's that the world is divided between the elderly (who may die) and everyone else (who will be fine even if infected). It's simply not true.
* The disease can ruin your life at any age * If you crowd together indoors with lots of unvaccinated people, the disease WILL spread again * If the disease starts spreading again, we'll end up with another lockdown.
Why does anyone want that??? For the sake of not carrying a card so nobody can track how we use it, when most of us use credit cards all the time and any competent intelligence agency can track us far better with those?
Not often that Leon and Richard and I totally agree! Government of National Unity...
There aren't going to be lots of unvaccinated people. There's no problem here for vaccine cards to fix.
It illustrates the Labour dilemma. A number of voter enclaves without a common agenda. But these voter enclaves cluster into three groups even about something as harmless and universal as respect for the flag of the nation of which your party is a principal instrument of power. 38 approve, 36 don't and (I assume) a third sizeable group of 26 or so don't mind one way or the other.
When compared to the common identity of the Tories it is startling and striking. This makes a difficult starting point for telling a few million Tories to switch. Nothing about Tory voters suggests that they can be enthused about a party which is half hearted about its own country.
It suggests that the Tory party may have reached the point where it has the better claim to be the one nation party than Labour.
Yes, that poll says it all: Labour's split down the middle on a fundamental issue of culture that has landslide support in the country as a whole and almost total support amongst the voters they have to win over. No wonder Sir Kir's scared to come off the fence - he can see the people waiting to pounce on him when he does...
There was a very good Guardian article the other day (was it John Harris? he usually writes their one good article a week) which pointed out that the Tories were "in danger " of becoming the Party of England, as the SNP have become The Party of Scotland
If you love your country, you vote Tory in England (or SNP in Scotland)
If Labour allows that to happen, they are finished. So the flag thing is quite pivotal, even if it seems trivial, and Starmer is right to react the way he does. The problem is that Labour has too many voters and activists like Kinabalu, who find this all utterly distasteful, and indeed hate patriotism of any kind (especially patriotism in a successful white European country that conquered the world, and *should* feel guilty)
We are entering a post-truth age where identity is paramount. The Left has done much to encourage this. Unfortunately, for them, they have simultaneously bestirred national identity, without realising.
England awakes, and it is not fond of creatures like Kinabalu
I'm not a creature. It's people like me - in the Modern Metro Left - who will ensure that the plague of softhead National Populism will be beaten as sure as Covid almost is. We are the vaccine.
You are a creature, if I had to specify, I would - to be fair - identify you as more of a weevil or a woodlouse, rather than an actual cockroach, or a plague rat - which is yer actual Seamus Milne or Corbyn
ie the sight of you evinces a tiny wince of distaste, and no more, a brushing of the hand and a turning away.
Your more extreme lefties evoke proper repulsion. I am not sure how Labour fixes this, but the polls are not encouraging. After starting the culture wars, you are now losing them, in the ballot box, even as you seem to win them in the media. It is a fake victory for you
Do extreme right-wingers evoke a similiar revulsion in you?
Yes
Funny, you never post about that.
Ok, here you go. I will post about it. I find far right opinions openly expressed by people-who-should-know-better absolutely repugnant. I will forgive uneducated poor people a rant about the EDL just as I will forgive the same on the far Left, if your life has been tough and punishing and you don't have the education to find an intellectual way out, then your anger is understandable.
I do not extend this forgiveness to educated, comfortable people who choose their extremism - eg Seamus Milne on the Left, or Nick Griffin on the Right.
I have examined my soul and I find elements of racism in it. I believe this is part of the human condition, probably ineradicable, though I see hope in new generations. My older daughter is in an excellent, racially mixed north London comprehensive and she seems genuinely unaware of skin colour in a way I can never be, which is one reason I am optimistic, but also one reason I am infuriated by this new left obsession WITH skin colour. No. Stop. This is the wrong direction.
As I say: am I a little bit racist? Yes, probably. I do not believe I have ever said an avowedly racist thing to another human being as an adult, but it surely lurks. So I police it, and I watch it. It is not most of me, and it won't get the better of me. I am a flawed human being. We are what we are. Crooked timber. And that applies to any human of any race. But we all strive to do better, I hope, while not abandoning scientific truths even if they are uncomfortable.
Comments
That extra capacity would usually be built by extending or building an additional factory near the existing one.
But that is no longer a safe option after the EU's behaviour over the past few months.
So if you need to expand European production capacity and you can't trust the EU which country out of none EU countries do you choose?
ie the sight of you evinces a tiny wince of distaste, and no more, a brushing of the hand and a turning away.
Your more extreme lefties evoke proper repulsion. I am not sure how Labour fixes this, but the polls are not encouraging. After starting the culture wars, you are now losing them, in the ballot box, even as you seem to win them in the media. It is a fake victory for you
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/07/can-labour-ever-win-again/
I see what you mean about auto correct.
I am glad my mates don't act like the EU....if they did I imagine they would be shitting on the carpet and putting my golf clubs through my OLED telly before I knew it.
I imagine everyone who thought it would be an easy way to introduce ID cards is having a panic about the missed opportunity.
On the flags rigmarole, I really don't see why it is a big deal, but it clearly is for people since most people don't feel strongly about it, but if some are railing against it or loudly talking about how much they don't care, well, they do. The Tories must be loving it (not that it solves all their problems in all regions) - an issue most people either don't care about, or are mildly positive about, and which for bizarre reasons tears apart parts of their opponents, and all they have to do is put up flags in TV appearances and tell people to fly them more?
As far as effort and cost expended to disrupt their opponent, sure, it is not the most useful, but it is bloody efficient. Just ignore it and let any silliness show itself when they overdo it.
The second objection is that it's a means to impose vaccinations on the unwilling, or even to discriminate against the unable. We don't need to contemplate the former if we have herd immunity and the latter is just cruel.
The third objection is that it will be used as a massive data gathering exercise by the state, to obtain intrusive information on people's behaviour. Not even those who don't have smartphones will be exempt. They'll likely have a paper cert with a barcode or QR code on it that has to be scanned and interfaces with a central database every time they enter most public venues.
The fourth objection is that, once this apparatus of mass surveillance is built, we will never be rid of it. The data is too useful to the Government. The excuse will be advanced that Covid hasn't gone away, or it's needed in case something like Covid happens again, or some other public health justification will be invented. It will turn into a national ID card by the back door and will carry on forever.
The final objection is that it is ultimately useless for the intended purpose. The period during which supposedly risky venues like pubs will be open but some people won't yet have been offered the vaccine (and might therefore theoretically need either to wait for one before going to them, or to be tested,) will be a transitory one, during which infection rates will be under control and at very low, Summer levels anyway. After a couple of months even the youngest adults will have been vaccinated and then after that we'll all have had as much protection as we're going to get. At that juncture, and given the very high uptake of vaccines seen so far, especially amongst the most vulnerable groups, there would seem to be virtually no benefit to, or justification for, trying to track who in a pub or a theatre has or has not been vaccinated.
And that's because there isn't any public health benefit to them. Their real value to Government isn't in saving a load of people from dying horribly, it's as a mechanism for whole population, total mass surveillance.
None of this is anything remotely like a proof of age card used in one or two specific circumstances. Oyster is a little further down the route, but even in that case you can charge the things anonymously with cash if you really want to. They're not the same thing, not the same thing at all.
2. The 'non-vulnerable' might still have their lives wrecked by the disease.
But the gains from this don't seem proportionate to the cost, and I don't think one needs to be a contrarian libertarian to conclude that.
Edit - We disagree on where to draw the line, but there has to be one.
And can somebody, for the love of god, please explain to me what the actual widespread public health benefit of a vaccine passport is in a highly vaccinated population? (apologies if this has been answered earlier). Either the vaccine works to control infection and, particularly, spread, in which case a few unvaccinated (let alone actually infected) people coming into close contact with an overwhelmingly vaccinated population has no impact, or it doesn't, in which case there's no point in drawing a distinction between the vaccinated and the not vaccinated. It's different with something like international travel where a country may be exposed to the introduction of the virus and wants to be very careful who it allows in.
Should have realised that my earlier posting on the thread was re-emerging! Apologies for the effective repetition...
The 'non-vulnerable' may also get run over by a bus on the way to the pub.
Like other people have said, our vaccine uptake is going to be circa 90% anyway. If the odd person in a pub is unvaccinated, it simply doesn't matter.
I just can't wrap my head around why this is necessary in any way and why pub owners would even want this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VxpTMAbas
As an interim measure, to help us unlockdown, vaccine passports are a good idea. If you haven't got one, get a negative test
FFS we are all commenting here, from our homes, where we have been isolated by government decree for the best part of 12 months. And people are whinging about a possible app, temporary and expedient, that might let us out!
It is bewildering. The perfect is the enemy of the LET ME HAVE A DRINK WITH MY FRIENDS
Get over it. If the government makes the app mandatory for years, that is the time to march on parliament. Right now I just want to get out of my home, with a QR code if required
1500 done today.
A veritable Gen X production line. All classes, political views, incomes and wealth, occupations, races, no doubt sexualities, too. Vast range of physical health on display. And mental health concealed. All in it together.
A snapshot of a NE age group cohort. The acid house generation 30 years on.
Something you wouldn't normally ever see tbh.
Strangely moving.
Faster internet required.
Think about theatres, a better example than pubs. At the moment they are closed completely. Some of them hope to re-open, but with social distancing it's extremely hard to make it viable. Why wouldn't they prefer to have a full house with punters showing their eligibility?
To be clear, this is a temporary intermediate stage between full lockdown and unlimited, restriction-free re-opening. If we are very lucky indeed, we might be able to go straight to the latter. In which case, great. But if not....?
I have met the likes of Kinabalu a million times. Across north London. YAWN
@alex_'s key error is the: "Either the vaccine works, in which case the vast majority of the population being vaccinated means they present no risk to others, and others pose no risk to them." sentence.
The vaccine gives 65-90% protection.
Why would you, as a sensible citizen who has been vaccinated, want to be put at a 10-35% risk of getting covid by idiots who refuse to be vaccinated?
The Government appears to be tracking down the route that the only acceptable outcome is that no one gets covid and no one dies of it. It is a ludicrous suggestion nut once it has taken root in Government circles it will be damned near impossible to weed it out again.
It's a long way to drive from County Cork or Kerry, but the Irish could concentrate their doses from the EU geographically.
How does the supply versus efficacy maths change if we ditched the scheduled second doses, transferred those doses to the adult population still waiting for their first doses, and then moved straight on to the vulnerable categories getting their new-and-improved-for-variants booster jab?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papers,_Please
But the system is letting them book, so once all NI people are jabbed, no need to turn the rest away. Let them vote with their feet and get jabbed. Leave the EU doses for the ROI people who can't travel.
I can predict every single opinion held by Kinabalu from about a light year away. Ineffably tedious
Incidentally, talking of extreme opinions, I have just read the most extraordinary book about Nazism, and the wave of suicides that befell Hitler's Germany, as it crumpled into defeat
PROMISE ME YOU'LL SHOOT YOURSELF
Written by a superbly gifted German historian, and analysing apparently unexamined evidence, he speaks of entire towns where half the population jumped in the river, whole families hanging themselves in orchards, mothers forcing their babies underwater, it is harrowing, but incredible. Even when there was no direct threat.
His thesis is that they were overcome with guilt at their Nazism. Which was about to be uncovered by the Allies. Better to be dead.
It is a remarkable document
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Promise-Me-Youll-Shoot-Yourself/dp/0241399246
Therefore I remain unconvinced that vaccine passports will make any significant difference to our COVID death count.
As stated by others, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
1) There is no imminent plan for any form of official vaccine certificates
2) The British state does not move quickly when it comes to paperwork
3) Which means the earliest that anything could be brought in is probably the autumn
4) By which time the Covid pandemic will almost certainly be over in the UK
5) So either something will be launched which no one wants businesses to implement, or it will be quietly dropped
6) Business doesn't want to implement unnecessary checks
7) There will be no meaningful use for any launched vaccine certificates
8) It will be quietly dropped
https://unherd.com/2021/02/inside-the-zero-covid-campaign/
"“China’s strategy, from the start, was to have no infections at all… Still in Beijing, where we have hardly any cases, every time you step outside your door you have to use a smartphone to scan a QR code — every shop, every taxi, every bus, every metro station. You have no privacy at all — it’s all built around this electronic system of contact tracing. To leave Beijing you have to have a Covid test, to come back in you have to have a Covid test…. We basically don’t have the virus here, but the flip side is that they are keeping this place locked down as tight as a drum… It’s very hard to know where Covid containment starts and a Communist police state with an obsession with control kicks in.”"
What, honestly, is the objection? When I go to a pub or a restaurant I would like to feel reasonably sure that that I am not going to be exposed to covid.
Is that really so outrageous?
Flags act as emblems of your idea of a country. In Scotland, many people use the Saltire as an emblem of what they hope Scotland will become. In England, many people use the Union Jack as an emblem of what they believe the best of Britain once was and could be again, or as a badge of shame of the worst that Britain was or is. We need to relax and understand that a complex society will have complex views of flags, and respect each other.
* The disease can ruin your life at any age
* If you crowd together indoors with lots of unvaccinated people, the disease WILL spread again
* If the disease starts spreading again, we'll end up with another lockdown.
Why does anyone want that??? For the sake of not carrying a card so nobody can track how we use it, when most of us use credit cards all the time and any competent intelligence agency can track us far better with those?
Not often that Leon and Richard and I totally agree! Government of National Unity...
The 90% risk reduction from the vaccine essentially makes the Covid risks equivalent to flu risks. It isn't ever going to be zero risk. But I think that risk, once vaccinated, is low enough that I'm not prepared to accept an erosion of my civil liberties in a futile attempt to reduce that risk to zero.
Fears of spreading Covid variants will lead to safety-first decisions on everything from foreign travel to hospitality rules
James Forsyth" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-political-class-have-lost-their-taste-for-risk-s3t0nrsg7
That's a risk they've taken by refusing a vaccine.
If you're suggesting that vaccinated people are endangered by non-vaccinated people, please show your working because I don't get it.
You're vaccinated. You have almost 100% protection against severe disease and 70%+ protection against any symptoms at all. An unvaccinated person with COVID, as unlikely as that will be in a highly vaccinated population, is of little risk to you.
How the hell is that arguable on civil liberty grounds?
I am quite frankly staggered that this needs to be said, but here goes.
Herd immunity stops widespread infection.
The odd person might catch Covid. A very unlucky person may die from it.
The combination of vaccination and really quite significant levels of prior infection in the population will prevent rampant spread.
Just look at Israel.
I'm not arguing against them on civil liberties grounds, I'm arguing against them on common sense grounds.
HERD IMMUNITY.
https://twitter.com/StuartKLau/status/1375224497687703555
It came with the house when we bought it and I initially thought I was going to take it out but it endures.
I have on occasion flown the following flegs:
Leeds United Smiley
Jolly Roger
Naval ensign of the Soviet Union
Bisected Black and Red flag as popularised by the anarchists of the Bologna Insurrection
Green and white of Fermanagh
I do not extend this forgiveness to educated, comfortable people who choose their extremism - eg Seamus Milne on the Left, or Nick Griffin on the Right.
I have examined my soul and I find elements of racism in it. I believe this is part of the human condition, probably ineradicable, though I see hope in new generations. My older daughter is in an excellent, racially mixed north London comprehensive and she seems genuinely unaware of skin colour in a way I can never be, which is one reason I am optimistic, but also one reason I am infuriated by this new left obsession WITH skin colour. No. Stop. This is the wrong direction.
As I say: am I a little bit racist? Yes, probably. I do not believe I have ever said an avowedly racist thing to another human being as an adult, but it surely lurks. So I police it, and I watch it. It is not most of me, and it won't get the better of me. I am a flawed human being. We are what we are. Crooked timber. And that applies to any human of any race. But we all strive to do better, I hope, while not abandoning scientific truths even if they are uncomfortable.
There. Job done. That's me.
You?