Why the hell we are still allowing that kind of thing to go on whilst planning on the UK population being subject to internal passports and mass testing is beyond me. I can only think that the Tory Party is in hock to the travel industry and airlines. If there is one thing the UK has consistenly screwed up throughout the pandemic it is travel.
Vaxports are designed to allow certain businesses to open earlier than otherwise.
But not much earlier- they're not happening tomorrow, and everyone is expecting herd immunity by May/June and complete adult coverage by June/July.
But there's a time interval where vaccination will be partial, and some people will be anxious. But vaxports give reassurance to the already 90%+ protected, that they won't be exposed to the pox that their bodies already have antibodies for. The unprotected will have to stay at home.
But it will allow businesses to reopen. Even though a chunk of their clientele will still be stuck at home. And since the hospitality biz is mainly staffed by young people, there won't be enough people with a passport to stand the other side of the bar.
It doesn't matter that it's popular- it's not going to work.
And yet, it seems to be working in Israel? I can’t find any serious calls to scrap it, there. If you can, please show me - I’d be sincerely interested
Isn't the main thing about Israel that they've vaccinated so many people that the virus literally can't spread? Which is how it should be.
Plus a famously rigourous approach to national security.
Vaccine internal passports solve the problem of managing a society where a state of partial vaccination persists for a long time. That's not going to be the situation.
I’m talking about the Israeli vaxport. They’ve got it. They’re using it. I can’t find much objection to it from businesses or individuals, just the odd complaint about its functionality. And a couple of scholarly libertarians
That'll be the famously rigourous (and eminently justified) approach to national security.
As for next virus, I'd like to know how quickly it would be possible to get from new nasty to mass distribution of mRNA vaccines, now we know what we're doing with them. This time, a year was remarkably quick- next time will surely be faster still, which changes the calculation a lot.
Exactly, and Israel already has a hugely advanced and digitised health service. It's nothing like what the NHS has and there are loads of safeguards over how the data can be used, Israel is a nation that is at the forefront of the health data revolution and at the forefront of data privacy laws. It's the one nation in the world that can probably handle a system like this without too many issues.
Also agree on the next batch of vaccines. It's not just mRNA, the Novavax approach is actually pretty similar but it skips the mRNA step and puts the virus protein directly in the body rather than the mRNA that instructs the body to make the viral proteins. Between the Novavax deal and CureVac we'll have domestic manufacturing of two very advanced vaccine types in time for any major variants.
Imagine it’s early 2020 all over again. Except this time we are forewarned. We know what’s coming.
The government says to us, we can have a Korea style outcome, 1,700 dead, 100,000 cases, virtually no lockdown, economy barely touched, but for that to happen we need compulsory smartphone apps so the government can track and trace everyone?
Alternatively, we can have no compulsory apps, the government will not track everyone, but instead we will have 4m cases, 150,000 dead, a year of lockdown, and an economy decimated
I know which one I’d choose. The first. South Korea. Let the government film me in the loo. I don’t bloody care
I imagine 98% of Britons would choose the same. So Liberty really is relative, not absolute
You would be more likely to get the surveillance society plus the lockdowns and deaths given government's unwillingness to shut the borders and inability to organise track and trace.
Yes, the borders are the key, we don't need a SK surveillance state if we close the border properly.
We should surely do both. Close the borders tightly. However, because we are not far far away from anywhere else, like Oz and NZ, we will need to do SK as well.
Remember the incredible data that SK gave its people. Text messages to citizens warning them they were nearing a cluster of infections down the road. STAY AWAY.
I guarantee every advanced nation on the planet will be studying SK’s covid policy and trying to learn from it. Just as SK learned from their own experience with SARS, so they were ready for Covid19
This quote really struck me as a student of history, (as I think Boris is). A certain leader of the German Reich used to conduct his goverment in this way, playing his ministers off against each other, and letting the strongest have their way in a form of Darwinism.
I do find it somewhat amusing of the acussations that Conservatives are waging a culture war. For the last decade they didnt even realise the war was happening. They allowed transgender extremism and movements like critical race theory to infest and spread across institutions. They belatedly realised that elements in their own government and publics services were facilitating this cultural revolution. The mildest of mild push back from them, and it is the Conservatives who are waging a war. A war that theyve barely realised was happening.
Since you invoked the first reference to the early to mid last century. It seems a bit like Germany claiming that the UK is the aggressor and militarist war mongerer for declaring war against them in 1939, when all they were trying to do was peacefully unite their subjugated peoples into a free and democratic homeland.
Very good point.
The reason the reactions to the race report were so shrill and hysterical (a bit like reax to vaxports here) is because the Left has never experienced push back on this issue ever before. They’ve had it all their own way, they’ve never encountered a different position, and in their culture war there’s been no fighting because an enemy did not exist. It was just endless advance on all fronts.
They seem actively outraged that someone should dare to contradict them.
Reading through the thread again it is clear that there are different interpretations over what a domestic vaccine passport would mean.
For example:
1) Mandatory State: Costly and possibly high-tech state solution with government mandate that it is used in certain locations (e.g. indoor restaurants) 2) Voluntary State: Costly and possibly high-tech state solution which businesses can use to discriminate custom if they so wish 3) Voluntary Business: Businesses make the liberal commercial decision to insist on evidence of vaccination from punters which is not state-produced, e.g. NHS vaccination card/ signed declaration
These scenarios are obviously very different and each has differing civil liberty implications.
3) is least problematic, I agree, but should businesses be able to enquire over the health details of its customers? (The fuss over GDPR trivialities seems aeons ago.)
Businesses can only enquire over the health details of its customers, if the customers let the business do so by choosing to patronise that business.
If the customer doesn't want their health details being considered then they can go somewhere else instead. Free choice.
If the business wants to enquire and the customer is happy to let them do so, then what is the problem?
Hmm. So my local Mitchell and Butlers pub says "you can only enter if you tell us your health details". This therefore excludes those who would patronise if it wasn't for this request. Remember GDPR when businesses were shitting themselves over trivialities? You will point out that we are in an epidemic and this is a world away. Fair enough. If time-limited I guess I could just about accept this.
I don't think we are a million miles apart on this.
Why the hell we are still allowing that kind of thing to go on whilst planning on the UK population being subject to internal passports and mass testing is beyond me. I can only think that the Tory Party is in hock to the travel industry and airlines. If there is one thing the UK has consistenly screwed up throughout the pandemic it is travel.
Why isn't Starmer smashing the government on this every single day. I don't understand why all of the establishment have simply ignored the border.
This quote really struck me as a student of history, (as I think Boris is). A certain leader of the German Reich used to conduct his goverment in this way, playing his ministers off against each other, and letting the strongest have their way in a form of Darwinism.
I do find it somewhat amusing of the acussations that Conservatives are waging a culture war. For the last decade they didnt even realise the war was happening. They allowed transgender extremism and movements like critical race theory to infest and spread across institutions. They belatedly realised that elements in their own government and publics services were facilitating this cultural revolution. The mildest of mild push back from them, and it is the Conservatives who are waging a war. A war that theyve barely realised was happening.
Since you invoked the first reference to the early to mid last century. It seems a bit like Germany claiming that the UK is the aggressor and militarist war mongerer for declaring war against them in 1939, when all they were trying to do was peacefully unite their subjugated peoples into a free and democratic homeland.
Very good point.
The reason the reactions to the race report were so shrill and hysterical (a bit like reax to vaxports here) is because the Left has never experienced push back on this issue ever before. They’ve had it all their own way, they’ve never encountered a different position, and in their culture war there’s been no fighting because an enemy did not exist. It was just endless advance on all fronts.
They seem actively outraged that someone should dare to contradict them.
Absolutely. The rage was there for all to see. Average white person response to what we've seen over the last few years of the ratcheting up of this "how awful racist Britain and its institutions are" has divided into two, what are now becoming familiar lines.
Most people live in their cocoons, whether those are based on class, professions or race. Sometimes there is massive cross over of these and sometimes you can find yourself in regular company outside of that which you are familiar (NP talked about his poker games the other day as his experience). So we often really dont experience the lives of others and are willing to take their word for it.
So we end up with many people believing some of the more extreme claims about life in the UK by those who have largest media coverage. That for poorer people life has never been worse, with young urchins starving to death without access to foodbanks. That black people cannot experience a day without been abused racially etc.
This has allowed a ratchet on the latter for more and more ludicrous situations to be reported on with all seriousness. The list of things, places, activities and organisations that are now racist has become so ubiquitous that there are a sizable group of people who unquestionably accept it.
And then you have those who dont. Who see the whole thing as a nonsense, but mutter it quietly . The problem is.... That yes the whole thing is a nonsense, but the grain of truth that sometimes people do experience prejudice based on their race and lets see where we reduce it is lost.
At least some of those people are in regular receipt of a river of racist bullshit.
Do you imagine that David Lammy’s inbox is nothing but sweetness and light?
I think the report may have been well intentioned, but it utterly failed to either a) consider the context into which it was being dropped or b) to give the slightest thought or credence to any of the arguments that Britain does contain elements of institutional (or other) racism.
It’s one thing to think those arguments are wrong, but to simply ignore them completely & cherry pick only those parts of people’s research that the authors believed supported their POV without even consulting them suggests that the authors simply wished to push a particular narrative & were uninterested in any of the counter-arguments.
This might be good politics, but it’s bad science IMO.
I found the report a bit vacuous tbh. Also a touch cynical in that it was clearly manufactured to preexisting instructions like a piece of IKEA furniture.
"Let's have something upbeat saying we are no longer racist and people should stop banging on about it. That's what most of our voters think after all. And the Left will hate it, lol."
Yes, I've banged on about this before - how interesting it is that some people are reveling in denying UK citizens right to leave the country but never comment about foreign nationals who are still entering the country and thus have more freedoms in this regard than we do.
Imagine it’s early 2020 all over again. Except this time we are forewarned. We know what’s coming.
The government says to us, we can have a Korea style outcome, 1,700 dead, 100,000 cases, virtually no lockdown, economy barely touched, but for that to happen we need compulsory smartphone apps so the government can track and trace everyone?
Alternatively, we can have no compulsory apps, the government will not track everyone, but instead we will have 4m cases, 150,000 dead, a year of lockdown, and an economy decimated
I know which one I’d choose. The first. South Korea. Let the government film me in the loo. I don’t bloody care
I imagine 98% of Britons would choose the same. So Liberty really is relative, not absolute
You would be more likely to get the surveillance society plus the lockdowns and deaths given government's unwillingness to shut the borders and inability to organise track and trace.
Yes, the borders are the key, we don't need a SK surveillance state if we close the border properly.
We should surely do both. Close the borders tightly. However, because we are not far far away from anywhere else, like Oz and NZ, we will need to do SK as well.
Remember the incredible data that SK gave its people. Text messages to citizens warning them they were nearing a cluster of infections down the road. STAY AWAY.
I guarantee every advanced nation on the planet will be studying SK’s covid policy and trying to learn from it. Just as SK learned from their own experience with SARS, so they were ready for Covid19
Nah, we can easily enforce hotel quarantine and simple drop offs for roll off cargo. You're weirdly happy to accept these unnecessary intrusions into your life but not properly control the border to stop the virus entering in the first place. The system that every nation will be studying is New Zealand, not SK.
Why the hell we are still allowing that kind of thing to go on whilst planning on the UK population being subject to internal passports and mass testing is beyond me. I can only think that the Tory Party is in hock to the travel industry and airlines. If there is one thing the UK has consistenly screwed up throughout the pandemic it is travel.
Why isn't Starmer smashing the government on this every single day. I don't understand why all of the establishment have simply ignored the border.
It is ridiculous. And it’s not as if, by doing this, the government has ‘saved the travel industry’ - it is on its knees. So we’re taking foolish risks for zero gain. I don’t understand
Just shut the fucking borders to anyone who hasn’t got a pretty dramatic need to come here. None of us are allowed to go THERE
This quote really struck me as a student of history, (as I think Boris is). A certain leader of the German Reich used to conduct his goverment in this way, playing his ministers off against each other, and letting the strongest have their way in a form of Darwinism.
I do find it somewhat amusing of the acussations that Conservatives are waging a culture war. For the last decade they didnt even realise the war was happening. They allowed transgender extremism and movements like critical race theory to infest and spread across institutions. They belatedly realised that elements in their own government and publics services were facilitating this cultural revolution. The mildest of mild push back from them, and it is the Conservatives who are waging a war. A war that theyve barely realised was happening.
Since you invoked the first reference to the early to mid last century. It seems a bit like Germany claiming that the UK is the aggressor and militarist war mongerer for declaring war against them in 1939, when all they were trying to do was peacefully unite their subjugated peoples into a free and democratic homeland.
Very good point.
The reason the reactions to the race report were so shrill and hysterical (a bit like reax to vaxports here) is because the Left has never experienced push back on this issue ever before. They’ve had it all their own way, they’ve never encountered a different position, and in their culture war there’s been no fighting because an enemy did not exist. It was just endless advance on all fronts.
They seem actively outraged that someone should dare to contradict them.
Absolutely. The rage was there for all to see. Average white person response to what we've seen over the last few years of the ratcheting up of this "how awful racist Britain and its institutions are" has divided into two, what are now becoming familiar lines.
Most people live in their cocoons, whether those are based on class, professions or race. Sometimes there is massive cross over of these and sometimes you can find yourself in regular company outside of that which you are familiar (NP talked about his poker games the other day as his experience). So we often really dont experience the lives of others and are willing to take their word for it.
So we end up with many people believing some of the more extreme claims about life in the UK by those who have largest media coverage. That for poorer people life has never been worse, with young urchins starving to death without access to foodbanks. That black people cannot experience a day without been abused racially etc.
This has allowed a ratchet on the latter for more and more ludicrous situations to be reported on with all seriousness. The list of things, places, activities and organisations that are now racist has become so ubiquitous that there are a sizable group of people who unquestionably accept it.
And then you have those who dont. Who see the whole thing as a nonsense, but mutter it quietly . The problem is.... That yes the whole thing is a nonsense, but the grain of truth that sometimes people do experience prejudice based on their race and lets see where we reduce it is lost.
At least some of those people are in regular receipt of a river of racist bullshit.
Do you imagine that David Lammy’s inbox is nothing but sweetness and light?
I think the report may have been well intentioned, but it utterly failed to either a) consider the context into which it was being dropped or b) to give the slightest thought or credence to any of the arguments that Britain does contain elements of institutional (or other) racism.
It’s one thing to think those arguments are wrong, but to simply ignore them completely & cherry pick only those parts of people’s research that the authors believed supported their POV without even consulting them suggests that the authors simply wished to push a particular narrative & were uninterested in any of the counter-arguments.
This might be good politics, but it’s bad science IMO.
I found the report a bit vacuous tbh. Also a touch cynical in that it was clearly manufactured to preexisting instructions like a piece of IKEA furniture.
"Let's have something upbeat saying we are no longer racist and people should stop banging on about it. That's what most of our voters think after all. And the Left will hate it, lol."
Yes, just another piece of culture war propaganda, rather than any kind of attempt to get to grips with a serious issue facing the country.
Still, this government came to power riding the ultimate culture war issue (Brexit), so it’s the campaigning tool they’re most familiar with - expect a /lot/ of this kind of stuff in the next couple of years.
You elect a nationalist-populist government, what do you expect?
As far as I know (and I'd really like someone to describe an exception) they all end up unpleasantly authoritarian, led by a sleazy clique, and eventually running out of money.
It's a potent brew to win power, but it fails as a way to run a country.
Spot on, but according to most "conservatives" on here, bad governance is a price well worth paying for annoying the liberal lefties.
There are certainly a number of Conservative Party supporters on PB who don't really seem to care much what their side do when in power as long as they win. It's more akin to supporting a football team.
It is pointless arguing about whether Johnson is liberal or not, very few of his actions are motivated by conviction or political principle , the driver is what is likely to keep him in power.
People like HUYFD and Big G can be four square behind the Tories under Cameron when they were strongly in favour of being in the EU and then a couple of years later four square behind the Tories when Johnson has removed us from the EU and it is a virulently anti-EU party. I really don't get it.
OT Can't get worked up about vaxpassports either way. The horse has well and truly bolted if you are worried about a "surveillance society". CCTV cameras, mobile phone tracking, driving licences, NHS records, passports, credit cards - anyone who believes that we cannot be tracked already is delusional.
Can I just correct that comment
I have never been strongly in favour of the EU and my vote to remain was reluctant nor was I happy that Cameron had not achieved a deal with the EU
When we voted to leave I accepted the result and now want to move forward and adapt to the change that is inevitable
Accepting that Brexit it s now a fact is one thing, actively supporting a Brexit government is another thing entirely.
If you believe that being in the EU is a beneficial to this country, as I still do, then it is illogical to actively support this Johnson government. You might, at a stretch, vote for it as the lesser of 2 evils but to actively be a member makes no sense to me.
I do not support being in the EU at all not least following their recent behaviour
The psychological impact of this pandemic will be profound. The below relates the outcomes of the 1889-90 “Russian Flu” pandemic (possibly actually a form of coronavirus outbreak) and its profound effect on the cultural end of the 19th Century.
“[Josephine] Butler was one of the most prominent female sufferers to document the lingering after-effects of influenza following the pandemic of 1889–92—colloquially called the Russian influenza because the epidemic had broken out in St Petersburg in November, 1889. However, the best known and most widely reported influenza invalids in the UK were male and included the then British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Lord Salisbury, his nephew Alfred Balfour, the Secretary of State for Ireland, and Lord George Hamilton, the First Lord of the Admiralty. In February, 1895, the Liberal Party leader and Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery, also had Russian influenza and was confined to his home in Epsom, Surrey, for 6 weeks, with fatigue and insomnia, prompting intense commentary in Victorian newspapers and periodicals.
As with COVID-19, the diversity of these post-influenza symptoms and their unpredictability baffled contemporary medical observers and provoked lengthy disquisitions in The Lancet and other medical journals. The neurological conditions observed after the Russian influenza were given many names: neuralgia, neurasthenia, neuritis, nerve exhaustion, “grippe catalepsy”, “post-grippal numbness”, psychoses, “prostration”, “inertia”, anxiety, and paranoia. The Victorian throat specialist Sir Morell Mackenzie described how influenza appeared to “run up and down the nervous keyboard stirring up disorder and pain in different parts of the body with what almost seems malicious caprice”. The German-born Harley Street neurologist Julius Althaus concurred, stating that “there are few disorders or diseases of the nervous system which are not liable to occur as consequences of grip”.
The result was that by the middle 1890s Russian influenza was being blamed in England for everything from the suicide rate to the general sense of malaise that marked the fin de siècle, and the image of a nation of convalescents, too debilitated to work or return to daily routines, and plagued with mysterious and erratic symptoms and chronic illnesses, had become central to the period's medical and cultural iconography. Although H Franklin Parsons, the medical investigator for England's Local Government Board, completed his final report on the “1889–92 epidemic” in 1893, further severe recrudescences were observed in 1893, 1895, 1898, and 1899–1900. The official end of the pandemic, therefore, did not mean the end of illness but was merely the prelude to a longue durée of baffling sequelae.”
Rather than being psychological, a lot of those would have been post-viral syndromes of one kind or another.
Yes. It’s one of the reasons I like the theory that the 1889-90 pandemic may have been a coronavirus (although that case is far from proven) - nevertheless its also tempting the fin de siecle “malaise” of the late C19, with its fashionable despair and world-weariness, to a pandemic that killed as many in the U.K. as our current one, when the U.K. had half the population.
This quote really struck me as a student of history, (as I think Boris is). A certain leader of the German Reich used to conduct his goverment in this way, playing his ministers off against each other, and letting the strongest have their way in a form of Darwinism.
I do find it somewhat amusing of the acussations that Conservatives are waging a culture war. For the last decade they didnt even realise the war was happening. They allowed transgender extremism and movements like critical race theory to infest and spread across institutions. They belatedly realised that elements in their own government and publics services were facilitating this cultural revolution. The mildest of mild push back from them, and it is the Conservatives who are waging a war. A war that theyve barely realised was happening.
Since you invoked the first reference to the early to mid last century. It seems a bit like Germany claiming that the UK is the aggressor and militarist war mongerer for declaring war against them in 1939, when all they were trying to do was peacefully unite their subjugated peoples into a free and democratic homeland.
Very good point.
The reason the reactions to the race report were so shrill and hysterical (a bit like reax to vaxports here) is because the Left has never experienced push back on this issue ever before. They’ve had it all their own way, they’ve never encountered a different position, and in their culture war there’s been no fighting because an enemy did not exist. It was just endless advance on all fronts.
They seem actively outraged that someone should dare to contradict them.
Absolutely. The rage was there for all to see. Average white person response to what we've seen over the last few years of the ratcheting up of this "how awful racist Britain and its institutions are" has divided into two, what are now becoming familiar lines.
Most people live in their cocoons, whether those are based on class, professions or race. Sometimes there is massive cross over of these and sometimes you can find yourself in regular company outside of that which you are familiar (NP talked about his poker games the other day as his experience). So we often really dont experience the lives of others and are willing to take their word for it.
So we end up with many people believing some of the more extreme claims about life in the UK by those who have largest media coverage. That for poorer people life has never been worse, with young urchins starving to death without access to foodbanks. That black people cannot experience a day without been abused racially etc.
This has allowed a ratchet on the latter for more and more ludicrous situations to be reported on with all seriousness. The list of things, places, activities and organisations that are now racist has become so ubiquitous that there are a sizable group of people who unquestionably accept it.
And then you have those who dont. Who see the whole thing as a nonsense, but mutter it quietly . The problem is.... That yes the whole thing is a nonsense, but the grain of truth that sometimes people do experience prejudice based on their race and lets see where we reduce it is lost.
At least some of those people are in regular receipt of a river of racist bullshit.
Do you imagine that David Lammy’s inbox is nothing but sweetness and light?
I think the report may have been well intentioned, but it utterly failed to either a) consider the context into which it was being dropped or b) to give the slightest thought or credence to any of the arguments that Britain does contain elements of institutional (or other) racism.
It’s one thing to think those arguments are wrong, but to simply ignore them completely & cherry pick only those parts of people’s research that the authors believed supported their POV without even consulting them suggests that the authors simply wished to push a particular narrative & were uninterested in any of the counter-arguments.
This might be good politics, but it’s bad science IMO.
I found the report a bit vacuous tbh. Also a touch cynical in that it was clearly manufactured to preexisting instructions like a piece of IKEA furniture.
"Let's have something upbeat saying we are no longer racist and people should stop banging on about it. That's what most of our voters think after all. And the Left will hate it, lol."
Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us, institutions that have conservatives in any kind of majority control can completely dismantle the toxic advancement of critical race theory.
The tools for a ruthless push back have been handed to us. The counter revolution is in earnest.
This quote really struck me as a student of history, (as I think Boris is). A certain leader of the German Reich used to conduct his goverment in this way, playing his ministers off against each other, and letting the strongest have their way in a form of Darwinism.
I do find it somewhat amusing of the acussations that Conservatives are waging a culture war. For the last decade they didnt even realise the war was happening. They allowed transgender extremism and movements like critical race theory to infest and spread across institutions. They belatedly realised that elements in their own government and publics services were facilitating this cultural revolution. The mildest of mild push back from them, and it is the Conservatives who are waging a war. A war that theyve barely realised was happening.
Since you invoked the first reference to the early to mid last century. It seems a bit like Germany claiming that the UK is the aggressor and militarist war mongerer for declaring war against them in 1939, when all they were trying to do was peacefully unite their subjugated peoples into a free and democratic homeland.
Very good point.
The reason the reactions to the race report were so shrill and hysterical (a bit like reax to vaxports here) is because the Left has never experienced push back on this issue ever before. They’ve had it all their own way, they’ve never encountered a different position, and in their culture war there’s been no fighting because an enemy did not exist. It was just endless advance on all fronts.
They seem actively outraged that someone should dare to contradict them.
Imagine it’s early 2020 all over again. Except this time we are forewarned. We know what’s coming.
The government says to us, we can have a Korea style outcome, 1,700 dead, 100,000 cases, virtually no lockdown, economy barely touched, but for that to happen we need compulsory smartphone apps so the government can track and trace everyone?
Alternatively, we can have no compulsory apps, the government will not track everyone, but instead we will have 4m cases, 150,000 dead, a year of lockdown, and an economy decimated
I know which one I’d choose. The first. South Korea. Let the government film me in the loo. I don’t bloody care
I imagine 98% of Britons would choose the same. So Liberty really is relative, not absolute
You would be more likely to get the surveillance society plus the lockdowns and deaths given government's unwillingness to shut the borders and inability to organise track and trace.
Yes, the borders are the key, we don't need a SK surveillance state if we close the border properly.
We should surely do both. Close the borders tightly. However, because we are not far far away from anywhere else, like Oz and NZ, we will need to do SK as well.
Remember the incredible data that SK gave its people. Text messages to citizens warning them they were nearing a cluster of infections down the road. STAY AWAY.
I guarantee every advanced nation on the planet will be studying SK’s covid policy and trying to learn from it. Just as SK learned from their own experience with SARS, so they were ready for Covid19
Nah, we can easily enforce hotel quarantine and simple drop offs for roll off cargo. You're weirdly happy to accept these unnecessary intrusions into your life but not properly control the border to stop the virus entering in the first place. The system that every nation will be studying is New Zealand, not SK.
NZ now have a different problem. While other nations begin to recover and mop up from the coronavirus flood they are, for some considerable time to come, going to be nervously looking up at a creaking dam. The FIFA Women’s World Cup is due to be held there in two years. They need to get vaccinating.
Imagine it’s early 2020 all over again. Except this time we are forewarned. We know what’s coming.
The government says to us, we can have a Korea style outcome, 1,700 dead, 100,000 cases, virtually no lockdown, economy barely touched, but for that to happen we need compulsory smartphone apps so the government can track and trace everyone?
Alternatively, we can have no compulsory apps, the government will not track everyone, but instead we will have 4m cases, 150,000 dead, a year of lockdown, and an economy decimated
I know which one I’d choose. The first. South Korea. Let the government film me in the loo. I don’t bloody care
I imagine 98% of Britons would choose the same. So Liberty really is relative, not absolute
You would be more likely to get the surveillance society plus the lockdowns and deaths given government's unwillingness to shut the borders and inability to organise track and trace.
Yes, the borders are the key, we don't need a SK surveillance state if we close the border properly.
We should surely do both. Close the borders tightly. However, because we are not far far away from anywhere else, like Oz and NZ, we will need to do SK as well.
Remember the incredible data that SK gave its people. Text messages to citizens warning them they were nearing a cluster of infections down the road. STAY AWAY.
I guarantee every advanced nation on the planet will be studying SK’s covid policy and trying to learn from it. Just as SK learned from their own experience with SARS, so they were ready for Covid19
Nah, we can easily enforce hotel quarantine and simple drop offs for roll off cargo. You're weirdly happy to accept these unnecessary intrusions into your life but not properly control the border to stop the virus entering in the first place. The system that every nation will be studying is New Zealand, not SK.
New Zealand is a small, sparsely inhabited archipelago zillions of miles from anywhere. It is impossible to copy that when you’re a big, densely populated archipelago a short swim from Europe
We can emulate some of it, but not all.
South Korea is the one to go for. It is also less economically painful. SK’s GDP dropped by just 1% in 2020. NZ fell by 3% - much worse
Reading through the thread again it is clear that there are different interpretations over what a domestic vaccine passport would mean.
For example:
1) Mandatory State: Costly and possibly high-tech state solution with government mandate that it is used in certain locations (e.g. indoor restaurants) 2) Voluntary State: Costly and possibly high-tech state solution which businesses can use to discriminate custom if they so wish 3) Voluntary Business: Businesses make the liberal commercial decision to insist on evidence of vaccination from punters which is not state-produced, e.g. NHS vaccination card/ signed declaration
These scenarios are obviously very different and each has differing civil liberty implications.
3) is least problematic, I agree, but should businesses be able to enquire over the health details of its customers? (The fuss over GDPR trivialities seems aeons ago.)
Businesses can only enquire over the health details of its customers, if the customers let the business do so by choosing to patronise that business.
If the customer doesn't want their health details being considered then they can go somewhere else instead. Free choice.
If the business wants to enquire and the customer is happy to let them do so, then what is the problem?
Hmm. So my local Mitchell and Butlers pub says "you can only enter if you tell us your health details". This therefore excludes those who would patronise if it wasn't for this request. Remember GDPR when businesses were shitting themselves over trivialities? You will point out that we are in an epidemic and this is a world away. Fair enough. If time-limited I guess I could just about accept this.
I don't think we are a million miles apart on this.
What about 1) and 2) in my original post though?
In my eyes M&B are free to make whatever requests they want. They can say they are requiring shoes on, shirts on, or vaccine certificates or whatever - if the customer isn't OK with that then they can go somewhere else that will be happy to take their money.
I opposed GDPR as an inapproriate state intrusion. What was your opinion on GDPR?
1) I would completely oppose.
2) It is still the business making the choice not the state, the state is just creating the infrastructure they can use. I'd rather not have the government spending lots of money on this, but the state isn't telling people what to do so there seems to be little difference between 2) and 3).
Imagine it’s early 2020 all over again. Except this time we are forewarned. We know what’s coming.
The government says to us, we can have a Korea style outcome, 1,700 dead, 100,000 cases, virtually no lockdown, economy barely touched, but for that to happen we need compulsory smartphone apps so the government can track and trace everyone?
Alternatively, we can have no compulsory apps, the government will not track everyone, but instead we will have 4m cases, 150,000 dead, a year of lockdown, and an economy decimated
I know which one I’d choose. The first. South Korea. Let the government film me in the loo. I don’t bloody care
I imagine 98% of Britons would choose the same. So Liberty really is relative, not absolute
You would be more likely to get the surveillance society plus the lockdowns and deaths given government's unwillingness to shut the borders and inability to organise track and trace.
Yes, the borders are the key, we don't need a SK surveillance state if we close the border properly.
We should surely do both. Close the borders tightly. However, because we are not far far away from anywhere else, like Oz and NZ, we will need to do SK as well.
Remember the incredible data that SK gave its people. Text messages to citizens warning them they were nearing a cluster of infections down the road. STAY AWAY.
I guarantee every advanced nation on the planet will be studying SK’s covid policy and trying to learn from it. Just as SK learned from their own experience with SARS, so they were ready for Covid19
Nah, we can easily enforce hotel quarantine and simple drop offs for roll off cargo. You're weirdly happy to accept these unnecessary intrusions into your life but not properly control the border to stop the virus entering in the first place. The system that every nation will be studying is New Zealand, not SK.
NZ now have a different problem. While other nations begin to recover and mop up from the coronavirus flood they are, for some considerable time to come, going to be nervously looking up at a creaking dam. The FIFA Women’s World Cup is due to be held there in two years. They need to get vaccinating.
The NZ economy went back into negative growth at the end of 2020, despite avoiding covid almost entirely. Total isolation comes at a price
Imagine it’s early 2020 all over again. Except this time we are forewarned. We know what’s coming.
The government says to us, we can have a Korea style outcome, 1,700 dead, 100,000 cases, virtually no lockdown, economy barely touched, but for that to happen we need compulsory smartphone apps so the government can track and trace everyone?
Alternatively, we can have no compulsory apps, the government will not track everyone, but instead we will have 4m cases, 150,000 dead, a year of lockdown, and an economy decimated
I know which one I’d choose. The first. South Korea. Let the government film me in the loo. I don’t bloody care
I imagine 98% of Britons would choose the same. So Liberty really is relative, not absolute
I agree with you in principle. I don't care if I'm tracked 24/7 so long as everyone else is. I wouldn't want to be picked on. But I seriously doubt our ability to do that. By "our" I mean in the widest sense - government, state, population.
Actually, I don’t doubt our ability. We have a world class gene sequencing programme. We have a world beating vaccination programme. We have a world best testing programme. After a calamitous start - thanks to governmental and scientific ineptitude, on a colossal scale - we have now mastered some hugely important and difficult things.
So I entirely believe we could do a South Korea. It’s not THAT hard. Indeed, it’s not even a question of ‘could’, next time we HAVE to be like South Korea.
But I'm talking about a slick and robust tracking app that works and is embraced by almost all the population. We didn't get within a sniff of that. Geek fantasy in my view for this country. Could be wrong but that's my strong sense of it.
Reading through the thread again it is clear that there are different interpretations over what a domestic vaccine passport would mean.
For example:
1) Mandatory State: Costly and possibly high-tech state solution with government mandate that it is used in certain locations (e.g. indoor restaurants) 2) Voluntary State: Costly and possibly high-tech state solution which businesses can use to discriminate custom if they so wish 3) Voluntary Business: Businesses make the liberal commercial decision to insist on evidence of vaccination from punters which is not state-produced, e.g. NHS vaccination card/ signed declaration
These scenarios are obviously very different and each has differing civil liberty implications.
3) is least problematic, I agree, but should businesses be able to enquire over the health details of its customers? (The fuss over GDPR trivialities seems aeons ago.)
Businesses can only enquire over the health details of its customers, if the customers let the business do so by choosing to patronise that business.
If the customer doesn't want their health details being considered then they can go somewhere else instead. Free choice.
If the business wants to enquire and the customer is happy to let them do so, then what is the problem?
Hmm. So my local Mitchell and Butlers pub says "you can only enter if you tell us your health details". This therefore excludes those who would patronise if it wasn't for this request. Remember GDPR when businesses were shitting themselves over trivialities? You will point out that we are in an epidemic and this is a world away. Fair enough. If time-limited I guess I could just about accept this.
I don't think we are a million miles apart on this.
What about 1) and 2) in my original post though?
In my eyes M&B are free to make whatever requests they want. They can say they are requiring shoes on, shirts on, or vaccine certificates or whatever - if the customer isn't OK with that then they can go somewhere else that will be happy to take their money.
I opposed GDPR as an inapproriate state intrusion. What was your opinion on GDPR?
1) I would completely oppose.
2) It is still the business making the choice not the state, the state is just creating the infrastructure they can use. I'd rather not have the government spending lots of money on this, but the state isn't telling people what to do so there seems to be little difference between 2) and 3).
GDPR was (is?) a pain in the arse - mainly because in industry sprouted round it and exaggerated its original aims.
On 1) and 2) I agree. Should not be costly, personally I'd prefer 3), plus I'd say that the government shouldn't actively encourage domestic use and shouldn't apply to any public sector settings so as to set an example to private businesses.
So we got there in the end. Not miles apart. Phew.
Imagine it’s early 2020 all over again. Except this time we are forewarned. We know what’s coming.
The government says to us, we can have a Korea style outcome, 1,700 dead, 100,000 cases, virtually no lockdown, economy barely touched, but for that to happen we need compulsory smartphone apps so the government can track and trace everyone?
Alternatively, we can have no compulsory apps, the government will not track everyone, but instead we will have 4m cases, 150,000 dead, a year of lockdown, and an economy decimated
I know which one I’d choose. The first. South Korea. Let the government film me in the loo. I don’t bloody care
I imagine 98% of Britons would choose the same. So Liberty really is relative, not absolute
I agree with you in principle. I don't care if I'm tracked 24/7 so long as everyone else is. I wouldn't want to be picked on. But I seriously doubt our ability to do that. By "our" I mean in the widest sense - government, state, population.
Actually, I don’t doubt our ability. We have a world class gene sequencing programme. We have a world beating vaccination programme. We have a world best testing programme. After a calamitous start - thanks to governmental and scientific ineptitude, on a colossal scale - we have now mastered some hugely important and difficult things.
So I entirely believe we could do a South Korea. It’s not THAT hard. Indeed, it’s not even a question of ‘could’, next time we HAVE to be like South Korea.
But I'm talking about a slick and robust tracking app that works and is embraced by almost all the population. We didn't get within a sniff of that. Geek fantasy in my view for this country. Could be wrong but that's my strong sense of it.
They should have just gone to Apple and Google and asked them to build it.
I did suggest this might happen but MalcolmG called me a turnip or something.
Its a sensational piece of electioneering by handy Alex (who was NOT conspired against by the government as DavidL claims). The SNP are the progressive soft left of independence politics. Pro-Scotland but probably not a Scotland that many would like to see.
Happily if you are a regressive soft right voter who is also patriotic now you have a new choice for your independence - vote for an independent Scotland modelled on Hungary.
You are usually quite sensible Rochdale but that is just bollox
Which bit is bollox? That its a sensational piece of realpolitic by Salmond? That he wasn't the target of a government conspiracy to jail him? Or that there are people in Scotland with a vote who aren't as progressive as Sturgeon is?
The part where it was not Sturgeon , her close pals in SNP and civil service who tried to have him jailed for made up stories, all but the one consensual encounter being shown to be lies and the worst one the claimant was not even on the premises. That she was able along with civil service, police and Crown Office to get away with all this , so far at least is very alarming. Hopefully the forthcoming police enquiries and the civil court cases and missing funds investigations will be better handled.
I simply do not believe the core of this - that 9 women decided to pervert the course of justice and perjure themselves in court for some hope that a faction of a party they may or may not support may somehow win over additional support over someone who had already left the stage.
Well the people who have all the names, all politicians, civil servants very very close to Sturgeon disagree. The couple I know certainly point to it indeed given their history.
Cui Bono? I'm one of the 2nd tranche of women who came forward to testify against him in court. Where's the benefit in doing so with me lying and him sent down? Because I want Salmond gone? He'd already gone. Because I wanted power for the SNP? They were in government!
I just don't get it at a base intellectual level. People can tell all kinds of outrageous lies when there is something in it for them. What was in it for these women? Specifically? Because nobody has even been able to propose to me anything beneficial for them in participating in this supposed conspiracy.
You're being naive. We don't know since the identities of the women and their motives are protected.
If as rumoured they were close to Sturgeon then absolutely they could get involved in conspiracies, it wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened especially with Whatsapp etc
A few years ago I went to a tribunal and had taken legal advice that said it was a 50/50 "he said, he said" until someone leaked a group chat to me. I passed that leak on to my lawyer who said effectively that he never says 100% but it was as close to that as it could be with that as evidence. Without that leak there could have been a real miscarriage of justice. People do get involved in conspiracies without even realising it when they're egging each other on.
Perhaps I am being naive - its certainly a possibility on this one. I absolutely get that people get caught up in stuff. Had it just been the original two complainants then yes perhaps. But nine of them? If you are recruiting people to lie and risk jail for your barely perceivable political gain, then I could get managing to persuade a couple of fools to do it. But not nine of them. Its the numbers that make this not pass my bullshit test.
And yet the Court found him not guilty and the judicial review showed the whole thing was f*cked up. So how do you square that circle?
Once the ball gets rolling, especially when you're promised you will remain protected and anonymous (a promise that has lasted through to today despite the judicial review and acquittal and subsequent scrutiny) then it is easier to get people egged on to the point they step forward inappropriately.
It is a problem that we need to be aware of and how miscarriages of justice can often occur and why there needs to be the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and why few statements are as pernicious as "no smoke without fire".
There is no circle to square. It is a basic principle of the rule of law that the witness can be telling the truth and the jury can choose to acquit.
You elect a nationalist-populist government, what do you expect?
As far as I know (and I'd really like someone to describe an exception) they all end up unpleasantly authoritarian, led by a sleazy clique, and eventually running out of money.
It's a potent brew to win power, but it fails as a way to run a country.
Spot on, but according to most "conservatives" on here, bad governance is a price well worth paying for annoying the liberal lefties.
There are certainly a number of Conservative Party supporters on PB who don't really seem to care much what their side do when in power as long as they win. It's more akin to supporting a football team.
It is pointless arguing about whether Johnson is liberal or not, very few of his actions are motivated by conviction or political principle , the driver is what is likely to keep him in power.
People like HUYFD and Big G can be four square behind the Tories under Cameron when they were strongly in favour of being in the EU and then a couple of years later four square behind the Tories when Johnson has removed us from the EU and it is a virulently anti-EU party. I really don't get it.
OT Can't get worked up about vaxpassports either way. The horse has well and truly bolted if you are worried about a "surveillance society". CCTV cameras, mobile phone tracking, driving licences, NHS records, passports, credit cards - anyone who believes that we cannot be tracked already is delusional.
Can I just correct that comment
I have never been strongly in favour of the EU and my vote to remain was reluctant nor was I happy that Cameron had not achieved a deal with the EU
When we voted to leave I accepted the result and now want to move forward and adapt to the change that is inevitable
Accepting that Brexit it s now a fact is one thing, actively supporting a Brexit government is another thing entirely.
If you believe that being in the EU is a beneficial to this country, as I still do, then it is illogical to actively support this Johnson government. You might, at a stretch, vote for it as the lesser of 2 evils but to actively be a member makes no sense to me.
I do not support being in the EU at all not least following their recent behaviour
Like you I was a marginal voter in the referendum but unlike you narrowly decided to vote out. I think many diehard remainers assume that all brexiters are as extreme as they are. For many people it was a nuanced decision.
Imagine it’s early 2020 all over again. Except this time we are forewarned. We know what’s coming.
The government says to us, we can have a Korea style outcome, 1,700 dead, 100,000 cases, virtually no lockdown, economy barely touched, but for that to happen we need compulsory smartphone apps so the government can track and trace everyone?
Alternatively, we can have no compulsory apps, the government will not track everyone, but instead we will have 4m cases, 150,000 dead, a year of lockdown, and an economy decimated
I know which one I’d choose. The first. South Korea. Let the government film me in the loo. I don’t bloody care
I imagine 98% of Britons would choose the same. So Liberty really is relative, not absolute
You would be more likely to get the surveillance society plus the lockdowns and deaths given government's unwillingness to shut the borders and inability to organise track and trace.
Yes, the borders are the key, we don't need a SK surveillance state if we close the border properly.
We should surely do both. Close the borders tightly. However, because we are not far far away from anywhere else, like Oz and NZ, we will need to do SK as well.
Remember the incredible data that SK gave its people. Text messages to citizens warning them they were nearing a cluster of infections down the road. STAY AWAY.
I guarantee every advanced nation on the planet will be studying SK’s covid policy and trying to learn from it. Just as SK learned from their own experience with SARS, so they were ready for Covid19
Nah, we can easily enforce hotel quarantine and simple drop offs for roll off cargo. You're weirdly happy to accept these unnecessary intrusions into your life but not properly control the border to stop the virus entering in the first place. The system that every nation will be studying is New Zealand, not SK.
The lesson from S Korea is not that we should adopt a surveillance state, but rather that emergency pandemic response works best when there is a suitable plan in place and reaction is immediate, rather than delayed by a couple of months. The further lesson is that if you start testing and control measures early enough, before exponential growth makes it impossible, you can keep on top of viruses without spending tens of billions.
Our plan in place was designed for influenza, we didn't change it quickly enough, and we didn't implement control measures quickly enough, either. We are neither SK nor NZ, and whatever we did, or do in future, will be different from both - but there are lessons to be learned from both.
These arguments for the introduction of the internal passport fall apart like a wet paper bag.
It's about protection of staff - in which case why has Johnson already said they won't be applicable for many venues?
It's because Covid is some unique emergency. Yes it's a nasty virus and can cause complications but now the vast majority of the vulnerable population have been vaccinated, you can apply the same argument to influenza and the flu vaccine.
It's sledgehammer to crack a nut stuff. And yes I'd much rather attend a venue that wasn't demanding to know whether I'd either been vaxxed, had Covid anti-bodies or taken a recent test.
As a society we seem to be totally unwilling to allow individuals to weigh up the risks for themselves as we emerge into a future where the virus will be a background issue but the protection of the health system has been achieved.
If its a public health policy, the very first place that should be included is the tube. There is nowhere else that comes close to its impact in spreading germs around not just London but as London is so inter connected also to the wider country.
That it is not included is clear evidence that it is not a public health policy, but at best theatre to encourage youngsters to take the vaccine in greater numbers, or more likely the start of a permanent ID card scheme.
This is (re: the tube) of course an excellent point. The Government's general approach for combatting the spread of Covid has been to ban all activities which are "non-essential" whilst mitigating the dangers of those which they have to treat as essential. Public transport of course being in the latter group. The basic mitigation (other than masks and some measures to impose social distancing by fencing off seats) being to reduce usage to essential workers (everyone else being required to work from home).
But once the working from home guidance, and limits on non-essential activities are lifted then they have to accept that public transports and the tube in particular will start to become very busy again. Yes they'll still probably have masks to hold the line, but really, what's the point in protecting people in nightclubs and other crowded venues, if the protections on the tube are so flimsy?
The tube has about 100m passenger journeys per month in normal times. A decent proportion of those will be in more cramped and close conditions than any nightclub dancefloor let alone a bar, pub, theatre, sports stadia. It has poor ventilation.
That is before considering similarly crowded trains, trams and buses throughout the country.
If covid spreads again as we open up, it will be mostly from public transport, not hospitality venues.
Once again, that's missing the point a bit. Does it matter if a million people per day get COVID it only 100 of them turn up in hospital? The vaccines are primarily a tool to stop people needing hospital treatment and they are extremely effective at that.
Vaccine passports have got no utility that scenario.
Until WHO changed the definition of herd immunity, medics. recognised T cell immunity which is how a large population could mostly defeat a relatively new virus (SARS CoV 2 is ~80% similar to SARS 1 and of course some common colds are coronaviruses).
T cells are part of the reason why in a two week period only ~20% of passengers on the Diamond Princess became infected (NB in a longer period, it's thought that more would catch it but certainly not 100%).
The DP was an interesting trial because it was unintended and wouldn't normally be carried out due to 'ethics'. 0.37% died out of a ship population with an average age of ~60. There are proven treatments tested since then inclo Ivermectin, HCQ, vitamin D particularly.
Ioannidis recently published a paper estimating the IFR at 0.15%, or 0.05% if aged under 70.
Compulsory vaccination for an IFR of 0.15, let alone 0.05%? Go **** yourself, Gove and Johnson.
1 - T-cells provide a component of immunity but not, by their very nature, sterilising immunity that prevents transmission. As pointed out in detail by Shane Crotty, the immunologist who identified coronavirus cross-reactivity in SARS-CoV-2
2 - The cross-reactivity from common cold coronaviruses (which comprise only 20% of common cold infections in the first place) was studied and found to provide zero benefit in actually resisting covid - the T-cells were stimulated to react, but did not attack the virus at all. The common denialist meme that other coronavirus immunity protects against SARS-CoV-2 was comprehensively disproven.
3 - Ioannidis paper wasn't recent; it was several months ago, and was ripped apart by the wider community for dodgy assumptions, excluding any data that disagreed with it (of which there was much), and incorporating very dodgy serological data (which was since shown to be wrong) simply because it seemed to support his original idea. His latest paper was an attempt to defend it despite it being patently disproved by the IFR in many countries, including incorporating personal attacks on those who dismembered it in the first place.
4 - The IFR is neither 0.15% nor 0.05% as can be shown by the fact that the population death rate in many areas is considerably worse than that already.
Re 4, see inter alia WHO advice to doctors to define COVID deaths contrary to the normal past medical practice. Unprecedented. Same with a few other WHO rule changes in 2020.
The UK had ~10,000 deaths where COVID was the sole cause of death. Some deaths were defined as COVID despite the person clearly having succumbed to their cancer, trauma, MI or similar. Hardly anyone has questioned the 28 day rule, possibly because NHS trusts would sack them ... like they'll probably sack the consultant who pointed out the worrying rate of vaccine side effects among his/her colleagues. (this has been widely discussed abroad but the UK has been rather secretive ... I wonder why.)
If some of the figures you want to believe for 'COVID deaths' are correct, the implied deaths from cancer, MI, etc fall to 50-75% less than normal rates. This is vanishingly improbable.
You of all people on here seem to be destined to parrot forever the mainstream narrative and whatever the BBC or govt tell you that day. So over and out.
Why the hell we are still allowing that kind of thing to go on whilst planning on the UK population being subject to internal passports and mass testing is beyond me. I can only think that the Tory Party is in hock to the travel industry and airlines. If there is one thing the UK has consistenly screwed up throughout the pandemic it is travel.
Why isn't Starmer smashing the government on this every single day. I don't understand why all of the establishment have simply ignored the border.
Its very simple. We Had to leave the EU so that we could Take Back Control of our borders and stop people coming in. The Tories have done this, Labour opposed it. Labour should Shut Up complaining about our border being Closed and instead Cheer On the good old PM in his plans to Reopen our Closed border so we can go to Marbelloh and eat Egg and Chips on holiday.
Yes I know, this is the opposite of reality. But this is what the wazzocks out there believe. Labour can't attack the government for leaving open a border which Sneering Priti has definitely Shut.
(Note that the J&J vaccine will quite possibly be prone to a similar incidence of the very rare clotting effects, given that it's a similar technology - and at least one case has already been reported.)
So why don't we pivot the debate a little and ask the question - who is planning to voluntarily take up the government on the offer of a twice-weekly test (in England at this point)?
These arguments for the introduction of the internal passport fall apart like a wet paper bag.
It's about protection of staff - in which case why has Johnson already said they won't be applicable for many venues?
It's because Covid is some unique emergency. Yes it's a nasty virus and can cause complications but now the vast majority of the vulnerable population have been vaccinated, you can apply the same argument to influenza and the flu vaccine.
It's sledgehammer to crack a nut stuff. And yes I'd much rather attend a venue that wasn't demanding to know whether I'd either been vaxxed, had Covid anti-bodies or taken a recent test.
As a society we seem to be totally unwilling to allow individuals to weigh up the risks for themselves as we emerge into a future where the virus will be a background issue but the protection of the health system has been achieved.
If its a public health policy, the very first place that should be included is the tube. There is nowhere else that comes close to its impact in spreading germs around not just London but as London is so inter connected also to the wider country.
That it is not included is clear evidence that it is not a public health policy, but at best theatre to encourage youngsters to take the vaccine in greater numbers, or more likely the start of a permanent ID card scheme.
This is (re: the tube) of course an excellent point. The Government's general approach for combatting the spread of Covid has been to ban all activities which are "non-essential" whilst mitigating the dangers of those which they have to treat as essential. Public transport of course being in the latter group. The basic mitigation (other than masks and some measures to impose social distancing by fencing off seats) being to reduce usage to essential workers (everyone else being required to work from home).
But once the working from home guidance, and limits on non-essential activities are lifted then they have to accept that public transports and the tube in particular will start to become very busy again. Yes they'll still probably have masks to hold the line, but really, what's the point in protecting people in nightclubs and other crowded venues, if the protections on the tube are so flimsy?
The tube has about 100m passenger journeys per month in normal times. A decent proportion of those will be in more cramped and close conditions than any nightclub dancefloor let alone a bar, pub, theatre, sports stadia. It has poor ventilation.
That is before considering similarly crowded trains, trams and buses throughout the country.
If covid spreads again as we open up, it will be mostly from public transport, not hospitality venues.
Once again, that's missing the point a bit. Does it matter if a million people per day get COVID it only 100 of them turn up in hospital? The vaccines are primarily a tool to stop people needing hospital treatment and they are extremely effective at that.
Vaccine passports have got no utility that scenario.
Until WHO changed the definition of herd immunity, medics. recognised T cell immunity which is how a large population could mostly defeat a relatively new virus (SARS CoV 2 is ~80% similar to SARS 1 and of course some common colds are coronaviruses).
T cells are part of the reason why in a two week period only ~20% of passengers on the Diamond Princess became infected (NB in a longer period, it's thought that more would catch it but certainly not 100%).
The DP was an interesting trial because it was unintended and wouldn't normally be carried out due to 'ethics'. 0.37% died out of a ship population with an average age of ~60. There are proven treatments tested since then inclo Ivermectin, HCQ, vitamin D particularly.
Ioannidis recently published a paper estimating the IFR at 0.15%, or 0.05% if aged under 70.
Compulsory vaccination for an IFR of 0.15, let alone 0.05%? Go **** yourself, Gove and Johnson.
1 - T-cells provide a component of immunity but not, by their very nature, sterilising immunity that prevents transmission. As pointed out in detail by Shane Crotty, the immunologist who identified coronavirus cross-reactivity in SARS-CoV-2
2 - The cross-reactivity from common cold coronaviruses (which comprise only 20% of common cold infections in the first place) was studied and found to provide zero benefit in actually resisting covid - the T-cells were stimulated to react, but did not attack the virus at all. The common denialist meme that other coronavirus immunity protects against SARS-CoV-2 was comprehensively disproven.
3 - Ioannidis paper wasn't recent; it was several months ago, and was ripped apart by the wider community for dodgy assumptions, excluding any data that disagreed with it (of which there was much), and incorporating very dodgy serological data (which was since shown to be wrong) simply because it seemed to support his original idea. His latest paper was an attempt to defend it despite it being patently disproved by the IFR in many countries, including incorporating personal attacks on those who dismembered it in the first place.
4 - The IFR is neither 0.15% nor 0.05% as can be shown by the fact that the population death rate in many areas is considerably worse than that already.
Re 4, see inter alia WHO advice to doctors to define COVID deaths contrary to the normal past medical practice. Unprecedented. Same with a few other WHO rule changes in 2020.
The UK had ~10,000 deaths where COVID was the sole cause of death. Some deaths were defined as COVID despite the person clearly having succumbed to their cancer, trauma, MI or similar. Hardly anyone has questioned the 28 day rule, possibly because NHS trusts would sack them ... like they'll probably sack the consultant who pointed out the worrying rate of vaccine side effects among his/her colleagues. (this has been widely discussed abroad but the UK has been rather secretive ... I wonder why.)
If some of the figures you want to believe for 'COVID deaths' are correct, the implied deaths from cancer, MI, etc fall to 50-75% less than normal rates. This is vanishingly improbable.
You of all people on here seem to be destined to parrot forever the mainstream narrative and whatever the BBC or govt tell you that day. So over and out.
This quote really struck me as a student of history, (as I think Boris is). A certain leader of the German Reich used to conduct his goverment in this way, playing his ministers off against each other, and letting the strongest have their way in a form of Darwinism.
I do find it somewhat amusing of the acussations that Conservatives are waging a culture war. For the last decade they didnt even realise the war was happening. They allowed transgender extremism and movements like critical race theory to infest and spread across institutions. They belatedly realised that elements in their own government and publics services were facilitating this cultural revolution. The mildest of mild push back from them, and it is the Conservatives who are waging a war. A war that theyve barely realised was happening.
Since you invoked the first reference to the early to mid last century. It seems a bit like Germany claiming that the UK is the aggressor and militarist war mongerer for declaring war against them in 1939, when all they were trying to do was peacefully unite their subjugated peoples into a free and democratic homeland.
Very good point.
The reason the reactions to the race report were so shrill and hysterical (a bit like reax to vaxports here) is because the Left has never experienced push back on this issue ever before. They’ve had it all their own way, they’ve never encountered a different position, and in their culture war there’s been no fighting because an enemy did not exist. It was just endless advance on all fronts.
They seem actively outraged that someone should dare to contradict them.
Absolutely. The rage was there for all to see. Average white person response to what we've seen over the last few years of the ratcheting up of this "how awful racist Britain and its institutions are" has divided into two, what are now becoming familiar lines.
Most people live in their cocoons, whether those are based on class, professions or race. Sometimes there is massive cross over of these and sometimes you can find yourself in regular company outside of that which you are familiar (NP talked about his poker games the other day as his experience). So we often really dont experience the lives of others and are willing to take their word for it.
So we end up with many people believing some of the more extreme claims about life in the UK by those who have largest media coverage. That for poorer people life has never been worse, with young urchins starving to death without access to foodbanks. That black people cannot experience a day without been abused racially etc.
This has allowed a ratchet on the latter for more and more ludicrous situations to be reported on with all seriousness. The list of things, places, activities and organisations that are now racist has become so ubiquitous that there are a sizable group of people who unquestionably accept it.
And then you have those who dont. Who see the whole thing as a nonsense, but mutter it quietly . The problem is.... That yes the whole thing is a nonsense, but the grain of truth that sometimes people do experience prejudice based on their race and lets see where we reduce it is lost.
At least some of those people are in regular receipt of a river of racist bullshit.
Do you imagine that David Lammy’s inbox is nothing but sweetness and light?
I think the report may have been well intentioned, but it utterly failed to either a) consider the context into which it was being dropped or b) to give the slightest thought or credence to any of the arguments that Britain does contain elements of institutional (or other) racism.
It’s one thing to think those arguments are wrong, but to simply ignore them completely & cherry pick only those parts of people’s research that the authors believed supported their POV without even consulting them suggests that the authors simply wished to push a particular narrative & were uninterested in any of the counter-arguments.
This might be good politics, but it’s bad science IMO.
I found the report a bit vacuous tbh. Also a touch cynical in that it was clearly manufactured to preexisting instructions like a piece of IKEA furniture.
"Let's have something upbeat saying we are no longer racist and people should stop banging on about it. That's what most of our voters think after all. And the Left will hate it, lol."
Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us, institutions that have conservatives in any kind of majority control can completely dismantle the toxic advancement of critical race theory.
The tools for a ruthless push back have been handed to us. The counter revolution is in earnest.
Well I just hope that "ruthless pushback against critical race theory" is not pseudy wank-speak for complacency and the trivialization of racism.
We've made a lot of progress in this area over the last few decades. It would be a shame to go into reverse.
Why the hell we are still allowing that kind of thing to go on whilst planning on the UK population being subject to internal passports and mass testing is beyond me. I can only think that the Tory Party is in hock to the travel industry and airlines. If there is one thing the UK has consistenly screwed up throughout the pandemic it is travel.
Why isn't Starmer smashing the government on this every single day. I don't understand why all of the establishment have simply ignored the border.
Its very simple. We Had to leave the EU so that we could Take Back Control of our borders and stop people coming in. The Tories have done this, Labour opposed it. Labour should Shut Up complaining about our border being Closed and instead Cheer On the good old PM in his plans to Reopen our Closed border so we can go to Marbelloh and eat Egg and Chips on holiday.
Yes I know, this is the opposite of reality. But this is what the wazzocks out there believe. Labour can't attack the government for leaving open a border which Sneering Priti has definitely Shut.
Rather ironic that you mention ‘sneering Priti’ in a comment that is drenched with snobbish contempt for your fellow Britons, sorry, ‘the wazzocks out there who eat egg and chips’
Dominic Sandbrook - ‘Prime Ministers don’t need to be virtuous The office's 300-year history proves that the best leaders are often lazy charlatans’
“ Johnson is also typical in being a natural performer, who loves showing off and playing to the gallery. Bien-pensant intellectuals shudder at this sort of thing, because they think politicians should be like university lecturers, dropping abstract nouns into the dead silence of the seminar room. Yet in reality, successful politicians are almost always entertainers. This was true even in the pre-democratic age, when they needed to perform to the court and the monarch. And most successful modern Prime Ministers have been shameless actors, gleefully pandering to the expectations of their audiences.”
So why don't we pivot the debate a little and ask the question - who is planning to voluntarily take up the government on the offer of a twice-weekly test (in England at this point)?
These arguments for the introduction of the internal passport fall apart like a wet paper bag.
It's about protection of staff - in which case why has Johnson already said they won't be applicable for many venues?
It's because Covid is some unique emergency. Yes it's a nasty virus and can cause complications but now the vast majority of the vulnerable population have been vaccinated, you can apply the same argument to influenza and the flu vaccine.
It's sledgehammer to crack a nut stuff. And yes I'd much rather attend a venue that wasn't demanding to know whether I'd either been vaxxed, had Covid anti-bodies or taken a recent test.
As a society we seem to be totally unwilling to allow individuals to weigh up the risks for themselves as we emerge into a future where the virus will be a background issue but the protection of the health system has been achieved.
If its a public health policy, the very first place that should be included is the tube. There is nowhere else that comes close to its impact in spreading germs around not just London but as London is so inter connected also to the wider country.
That it is not included is clear evidence that it is not a public health policy, but at best theatre to encourage youngsters to take the vaccine in greater numbers, or more likely the start of a permanent ID card scheme.
This is (re: the tube) of course an excellent point. The Government's general approach for combatting the spread of Covid has been to ban all activities which are "non-essential" whilst mitigating the dangers of those which they have to treat as essential. Public transport of course being in the latter group. The basic mitigation (other than masks and some measures to impose social distancing by fencing off seats) being to reduce usage to essential workers (everyone else being required to work from home).
But once the working from home guidance, and limits on non-essential activities are lifted then they have to accept that public transports and the tube in particular will start to become very busy again. Yes they'll still probably have masks to hold the line, but really, what's the point in protecting people in nightclubs and other crowded venues, if the protections on the tube are so flimsy?
The tube has about 100m passenger journeys per month in normal times. A decent proportion of those will be in more cramped and close conditions than any nightclub dancefloor let alone a bar, pub, theatre, sports stadia. It has poor ventilation.
That is before considering similarly crowded trains, trams and buses throughout the country.
If covid spreads again as we open up, it will be mostly from public transport, not hospitality venues.
Once again, that's missing the point a bit. Does it matter if a million people per day get COVID it only 100 of them turn up in hospital? The vaccines are primarily a tool to stop people needing hospital treatment and they are extremely effective at that.
Vaccine passports have got no utility that scenario.
Until WHO changed the definition of herd immunity, medics. recognised T cell immunity which is how a large population could mostly defeat a relatively new virus (SARS CoV 2 is ~80% similar to SARS 1 and of course some common colds are coronaviruses).
T cells are part of the reason why in a two week period only ~20% of passengers on the Diamond Princess became infected (NB in a longer period, it's thought that more would catch it but certainly not 100%).
The DP was an interesting trial because it was unintended and wouldn't normally be carried out due to 'ethics'. 0.37% died out of a ship population with an average age of ~60. There are proven treatments tested since then inclo Ivermectin, HCQ, vitamin D particularly.
Ioannidis recently published a paper estimating the IFR at 0.15%, or 0.05% if aged under 70.
Compulsory vaccination for an IFR of 0.15, let alone 0.05%? Go **** yourself, Gove and Johnson.
1 - T-cells provide a component of immunity but not, by their very nature, sterilising immunity that prevents transmission. As pointed out in detail by Shane Crotty, the immunologist who identified coronavirus cross-reactivity in SARS-CoV-2
2 - The cross-reactivity from common cold coronaviruses (which comprise only 20% of common cold infections in the first place) was studied and found to provide zero benefit in actually resisting covid - the T-cells were stimulated to react, but did not attack the virus at all. The common denialist meme that other coronavirus immunity protects against SARS-CoV-2 was comprehensively disproven.
3 - Ioannidis paper wasn't recent; it was several months ago, and was ripped apart by the wider community for dodgy assumptions, excluding any data that disagreed with it (of which there was much), and incorporating very dodgy serological data (which was since shown to be wrong) simply because it seemed to support his original idea. His latest paper was an attempt to defend it despite it being patently disproved by the IFR in many countries, including incorporating personal attacks on those who dismembered it in the first place.
4 - The IFR is neither 0.15% nor 0.05% as can be shown by the fact that the population death rate in many areas is considerably worse than that already.
Re 4, see inter alia WHO advice to doctors to define COVID deaths contrary to the normal past medical practice. Unprecedented. Same with a few other WHO rule changes in 2020.
The UK had ~10,000 deaths where COVID was the sole cause of death. Some deaths were defined as COVID despite the person clearly having succumbed to their cancer, trauma, MI or similar. Hardly anyone has questioned the 28 day rule, possibly because NHS trusts would sack them ... like they'll probably sack the consultant who pointed out the worrying rate of vaccine side effects among his/her colleagues. (this has been widely discussed abroad but the UK has been rather secretive ... I wonder why.)
If some of the figures you want to believe for 'COVID deaths' are correct, the implied deaths from cancer, MI, etc fall to 50-75% less than normal rates. This is vanishingly improbable.
You of all people on here seem to be destined to parrot forever the mainstream narrative and whatever the BBC or govt tell you that day. So over and out.
Regarding the number of deaths due to Covid, I accept that the 28 day rule is problematic and dying "with" versus "of" Covid has been discussed a few times on here especially in the early weeks/months. My view is that there are no doubt many "withs" in the figures but on the other hand some people will have died "of" Covid after 28 days and so will not be in the figures and I'm happy to assume that one balances the other.
In any case, does it really matter? - what is of more concern is the unequal playing field against other countries statistics.
Dominic Sandbrook - ‘Prime Ministers don’t need to be virtuous The office's 300-year history proves that the best leaders are often lazy charlatans’
“ Johnson is also typical in being a natural performer, who loves showing off and playing to the gallery. Bien-pensant intellectuals shudder at this sort of thing, because they think politicians should be like university lecturers, dropping abstract nouns into the dead silence of the seminar room. Yet in reality, successful politicians are almost always entertainers. This was true even in the pre-democratic age, when they needed to perform to the court and the monarch. And most successful modern Prime Ministers have been shameless actors, gleefully pandering to the expectations of their audiences.”
There's truth in that, though since it is also not a requirement that successful leaders be lazy charlatans lacking in virtue I don't think it unreasonable for us to at least attempt to seek someone who might be both successful and possess such virtues.
This quote really struck me as a student of history, (as I think Boris is). A certain leader of the German Reich used to conduct his goverment in this way, playing his ministers off against each other, and letting the strongest have their way in a form of Darwinism.
I do find it somewhat amusing of the acussations that Conservatives are waging a culture war. For the last decade they didnt even realise the war was happening. They allowed transgender extremism and movements like critical race theory to infest and spread across institutions. They belatedly realised that elements in their own government and publics services were facilitating this cultural revolution. The mildest of mild push back from them, and it is the Conservatives who are waging a war. A war that theyve barely realised was happening.
Since you invoked the first reference to the early to mid last century. It seems a bit like Germany claiming that the UK is the aggressor and militarist war mongerer for declaring war against them in 1939, when all they were trying to do was peacefully unite their subjugated peoples into a free and democratic homeland.
Very good point.
The reason the reactions to the race report were so shrill and hysterical (a bit like reax to vaxports here) is because the Left has never experienced push back on this issue ever before. They’ve had it all their own way, they’ve never encountered a different position, and in their culture war there’s been no fighting because an enemy did not exist. It was just endless advance on all fronts.
They seem actively outraged that someone should dare to contradict them.
Absolutely. The rage was there for all to see. Average white person response to what we've seen over the last few years of the ratcheting up of this "how awful racist Britain and its institutions are" has divided into two, what are now becoming familiar lines.
Most people live in their cocoons, whether those are based on class, professions or race. Sometimes there is massive cross over of these and sometimes you can find yourself in regular company outside of that which you are familiar (NP talked about his poker games the other day as his experience). So we often really dont experience the lives of others and are willing to take their word for it.
So we end up with many people believing some of the more extreme claims about life in the UK by those who have largest media coverage. That for poorer people life has never been worse, with young urchins starving to death without access to foodbanks. That black people cannot experience a day without been abused racially etc.
This has allowed a ratchet on the latter for more and more ludicrous situations to be reported on with all seriousness. The list of things, places, activities and organisations that are now racist has become so ubiquitous that there are a sizable group of people who unquestionably accept it.
And then you have those who dont. Who see the whole thing as a nonsense, but mutter it quietly . The problem is.... That yes the whole thing is a nonsense, but the grain of truth that sometimes people do experience prejudice based on their race and lets see where we reduce it is lost.
At least some of those people are in regular receipt of a river of racist bullshit.
Do you imagine that David Lammy’s inbox is nothing but sweetness and light?
I think the report may have been well intentioned, but it utterly failed to either a) consider the context into which it was being dropped or b) to give the slightest thought or credence to any of the arguments that Britain does contain elements of institutional (or other) racism.
It’s one thing to think those arguments are wrong, but to simply ignore them completely & cherry pick only those parts of people’s research that the authors believed supported their POV without even consulting them suggests that the authors simply wished to push a particular narrative & were uninterested in any of the counter-arguments.
This might be good politics, but it’s bad science IMO.
I found the report a bit vacuous tbh. Also a touch cynical in that it was clearly manufactured to preexisting instructions like a piece of IKEA furniture.
"Let's have something upbeat saying we are no longer racist and people should stop banging on about it. That's what most of our voters think after all. And the Left will hate it, lol."
Yes, just another piece of culture war propaganda, rather than any kind of attempt to get to grips with a serious issue facing the country.
Still, this government came to power riding the ultimate culture war issue (Brexit), so it’s the campaigning tool they’re most familiar with - expect a /lot/ of this kind of stuff in the next couple of years.
Really? I do hope so. This one was an absolute belter!
So why don't we pivot the debate a little and ask the question - who is planning to voluntarily take up the government on the offer of a twice-weekly test (in England at this point)?
Not me. I flat refuse. Even worse than vaccine passports in terms of intrusion into my private life.
All I can think gdpr has done is blocked me from viewing various US news websites.
GDPR has spawned an industry for producing privacy notices, consent popups, and box ticking (by both users and the companies). But there is not much evidence of the GDPR having stopped companies both collecting and losing large volumes of private data. It reminds me a bit of the FSA which was good at ensuring banks produced lots of paper work saying they were following the rules, but not very good at ensuring banks were solvent.
Thousands of tourists are being let in to the country every day even though the government has tightened restrictions on British people going abroad.
Last week I bumped into a German lady out on a rural walk. She was lost and wanted help from her recently acquired OS map. So I gave her some directions and then we got chatting.
She is over here to collect her daughter from boarding school and was out for a lovely long walk in the countryside.
She was in self-isolation ...
No mask.
I just smiled at her and chuckled to myself. Good for her.
Why the hell we are still allowing that kind of thing to go on whilst planning on the UK population being subject to internal passports and mass testing is beyond me. I can only think that the Tory Party is in hock to the travel industry and airlines. If there is one thing the UK has consistenly screwed up throughout the pandemic it is travel.
Why isn't Starmer smashing the government on this every single day. I don't understand why all of the establishment have simply ignored the border.
Its very simple. We Had to leave the EU so that we could Take Back Control of our borders and stop people coming in. The Tories have done this, Labour opposed it. Labour should Shut Up complaining about our border being Closed and instead Cheer On the good old PM in his plans to Reopen our Closed border so we can go to Marbelloh and eat Egg and Chips on holiday.
Yes I know, this is the opposite of reality. But this is what the wazzocks out there believe. Labour can't attack the government for leaving open a border which Sneering Priti has definitely Shut.
Rather ironic that you mention ‘sneering Priti’ in a comment that is drenched with snobbish contempt for your fellow Britons, sorry, ‘the wazzocks out there who eat egg and chips’
She sneers down her nose at people who she knows are clueless and have been kept deliberately so.
So why don't we pivot the debate a little and ask the question - who is planning to voluntarily take up the government on the offer of a twice-weekly test (in England at this point)?
Not me. I flat refuse. Even worse than vaccine passports in terms of intrusion into my private life.
If I could be arsed I'd change my handle to SidmouthObserver because that is where me and the Mrs are in the process of moving to - and lowering the average age of the place as a result! It's a fine little town, I have to say, surrounded by the most magnificent country. We now have our dream: a home by the sea. The only problem is a Tory MP with a rock solid majority, but we'll live with that ;-)
Thank you Cyclefree. A few thoughts. Vaccine passports don’t seem to be something that Boris Johnson would personally favour, so who is pushing him? Priti Patel, Michael Gove or Sir Humphrey? Whereas I would assume that Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf will be jizzing themselves at the thought of their introduction. Papers please, Mr. Salmond.
“Willcock v Muckle” sounds very Private Eye, Have they used it?
@DavidL, the passports may not in themselves be a restriction of liberty. Their abuse by certain Police Officers and other jobsworths, e.g. in local councils, will be the cause of a potential restriction of liberty. Which brings us back to Willcock v Muckle.
Courts are currently shut to the public. In normal times if you want to go in you can but you have to go through a metal detector and your bag will be searched. With my pass I can go straight in. Is that a restriction of your liberty or a sensible precaution for the safety of all inside?
There is a lot of hysteria on here this morning, there really is. We live in a country where the government conspired to get someone locked up and nearly half the people are still going to vote for it, including you AIUI. And you claim to worry about the civil liberties of this?
It could be argued that not everyone who has to enter a Court chooses to do so, which is different to pubs and stadiums. I will be voting for the person who was conspired against, not the conspirers.
You’re be ignoring the great one’s entreaty to vote SNP in your constituency then? I’m beginning to think some of this supermajority stuff might be bullshit.
He can hardly vote for Alex on constituency TUD. Sturgeon does certainly seem against a su[permajority, desperately smearing in case she gets a real majority and is forced to actually do something other than procrastinate and blame Westminster , whilst Ollie does the book keeping.
Dunno Malc, I still don’t see what difference a supermajority makes to the fact that It’s down to BJ to grant an S30. I’m open to a consultative referendum run from Scotland but I don’t see how vague suggestions about civil disobedience or international pressure change things much.
I’d do a certain amount of nose holding to get rid of that useless dimwit Annie Wells from Holyrood, but certain diddies on Twitter telling me one minute that people should spoil their constituency ballot and then next minute saying I need to vote Alba for Indy aren’t doing a great job of persuading me.
TUD, I have not seen much on civil disobedience apart from the odd nutter. We have seen the SNP government are at best inept and more likely crooked. Sturgeon does not want independence, she is holding on to get a big gig elsewhere whilst her and Ollie line their pockets. There are other ways to go about it as many countries have proven , begging Boris will never get us there and that suits Sturgeon just fine. Rather than the creepy easily bought Greens we need a real Independence party in Holyrood to hold SNP feet to the fire. I would rather see Annie Wells in charge than the rank bad un that is there just now, Governments shouldl no be able to manipulate justice systems to try and jail innocent people for their political aims. Can only be a matter of time now, the constant police enquiries will get her in the end.
I normally agree with you, Malc, but Annie Wells? Really?
I was being a bit facetious Fairlie
Thank goodness for that! I thought you were slipping!
I do not understand why the government seems to be so keen to introduce this Vaccine Passport/I.D. card scheme before it has been shown to be essential. I understand that under some circumstances it might be necessary, but it is too early to say that yet as the vaccination programme still has a long way to go.
To defend the government, they likely have war gamed scenarios (issues solutions) going forward, to the degree the rest of us havn’t.
I’m not sure it’s a mercy for cyclefree to have unfettered access to porn. It should be banned, not just licensed, it can be as addictive and damaging to people’s well being as drugs and alcohol. It’s a sin in so many ways.
The issue here is evidence, and freedom.
Bansturbators have been going after 'porn' for many decades, and as far as I can see *still* can't argue a convincing, evidence based case - beyond "Ugh".
Back under New Labour at one stage the trainee-moral-dictators had set their sights on written erotica as well as image-based. We ended up with the dog's breakfast which is the "Extreme Pornography Act".
This is not the 1950s or the 1930s, even if some people would like it to be so.
What’s the point of a government that doesn’t ban things?
Government are gardeners are they not? Gardens need tending, forcing and pruning. You can’t just leave it to nature, or all the pretty flowers will get raped and murdered. ☹️.
I look to government for good cultivation, not just pushing back the boundaries of individual freedom to create a nature state.
If I could be arsed I'd change my handle to SidmouthObserver because that is where me and the Mrs are in the process of moving to - and lowering the average age of the place as a result! It's a fine little town, I have to say, surrounded by the most magnificent country. We now have our dream: a home by the sea. The only problem is a Tory MP with a rock solid majority, but we'll live with that ;-)
I know Sidmouth well. I was in Seaton a few days ago visiting parents. Lyme Regis is best town in vicinity IMO. Branscombe is a pretty village. On your way down pop in to Yellow Deli in Honiton - it's a terrific place:
So why don't we pivot the debate a little and ask the question - who is planning to voluntarily take up the government on the offer of a twice-weekly test (in England at this point)?
I'll take up the Govt on the offer of a twice weekly negative result. Not so keen on doing the test though.
These arguments for the introduction of the internal passport fall apart like a wet paper bag.
It's about protection of staff - in which case why has Johnson already said they won't be applicable for many venues?
It's because Covid is some unique emergency. Yes it's a nasty virus and can cause complications but now the vast majority of the vulnerable population have been vaccinated, you can apply the same argument to influenza and the flu vaccine.
It's sledgehammer to crack a nut stuff. And yes I'd much rather attend a venue that wasn't demanding to know whether I'd either been vaxxed, had Covid anti-bodies or taken a recent test.
As a society we seem to be totally unwilling to allow individuals to weigh up the risks for themselves as we emerge into a future where the virus will be a background issue but the protection of the health system has been achieved.
If its a public health policy, the very first place that should be included is the tube. There is nowhere else that comes close to its impact in spreading germs around not just London but as London is so inter connected also to the wider country.
That it is not included is clear evidence that it is not a public health policy, but at best theatre to encourage youngsters to take the vaccine in greater numbers, or more likely the start of a permanent ID card scheme.
This is (re: the tube) of course an excellent point. The Government's general approach for combatting the spread of Covid has been to ban all activities which are "non-essential" whilst mitigating the dangers of those which they have to treat as essential. Public transport of course being in the latter group. The basic mitigation (other than masks and some measures to impose social distancing by fencing off seats) being to reduce usage to essential workers (everyone else being required to work from home).
But once the working from home guidance, and limits on non-essential activities are lifted then they have to accept that public transports and the tube in particular will start to become very busy again. Yes they'll still probably have masks to hold the line, but really, what's the point in protecting people in nightclubs and other crowded venues, if the protections on the tube are so flimsy?
The tube has about 100m passenger journeys per month in normal times. A decent proportion of those will be in more cramped and close conditions than any nightclub dancefloor let alone a bar, pub, theatre, sports stadia. It has poor ventilation.
That is before considering similarly crowded trains, trams and buses throughout the country.
If covid spreads again as we open up, it will be mostly from public transport, not hospitality venues.
Once again, that's missing the point a bit. Does it matter if a million people per day get COVID it only 100 of them turn up in hospital? The vaccines are primarily a tool to stop people needing hospital treatment and they are extremely effective at that.
Vaccine passports have got no utility that scenario.
Until WHO changed the definition of herd immunity, medics. recognised T cell immunity which is how a large population could mostly defeat a relatively new virus (SARS CoV 2 is ~80% similar to SARS 1 and of course some common colds are coronaviruses).
T cells are part of the reason why in a two week period only ~20% of passengers on the Diamond Princess became infected (NB in a longer period, it's thought that more would catch it but certainly not 100%).
The DP was an interesting trial because it was unintended and wouldn't normally be carried out due to 'ethics'. 0.37% died out of a ship population with an average age of ~60. There are proven treatments tested since then inclo Ivermectin, HCQ, vitamin D particularly.
Ioannidis recently published a paper estimating the IFR at 0.15%, or 0.05% if aged under 70.
Compulsory vaccination for an IFR of 0.15, let alone 0.05%? Go **** yourself, Gove and Johnson.
1 - T-cells provide a component of immunity but not, by their very nature, sterilising immunity that prevents transmission. As pointed out in detail by Shane Crotty, the immunologist who identified coronavirus cross-reactivity in SARS-CoV-2
2 - The cross-reactivity from common cold coronaviruses (which comprise only 20% of common cold infections in the first place) was studied and found to provide zero benefit in actually resisting covid - the T-cells were stimulated to react, but did not attack the virus at all. The common denialist meme that other coronavirus immunity protects against SARS-CoV-2 was comprehensively disproven.
3 - Ioannidis paper wasn't recent; it was several months ago, and was ripped apart by the wider community for dodgy assumptions, excluding any data that disagreed with it (of which there was much), and incorporating very dodgy serological data (which was since shown to be wrong) simply because it seemed to support his original idea. His latest paper was an attempt to defend it despite it being patently disproved by the IFR in many countries, including incorporating personal attacks on those who dismembered it in the first place.
4 - The IFR is neither 0.15% nor 0.05% as can be shown by the fact that the population death rate in many areas is considerably worse than that already.
Re 4, see inter alia WHO advice to doctors to define COVID deaths contrary to the normal past medical practice. Unprecedented. Same with a few other WHO rule changes in 2020.
The UK had ~10,000 deaths where COVID was the sole cause of death. Some deaths were defined as COVID despite the person clearly having succumbed to their cancer, trauma, MI or similar. Hardly anyone has questioned the 28 day rule, possibly because NHS trusts would sack them ... like they'll probably sack the consultant who pointed out the worrying rate of vaccine side effects among his/her colleagues. (this has been widely discussed abroad but the UK has been rather secretive ... I wonder why.)
If some of the figures you want to believe for 'COVID deaths' are correct, the implied deaths from cancer, MI, etc fall to 50-75% less than normal rates. This is vanishingly improbable.
You of all people on here seem to be destined to parrot forever the mainstream narrative and whatever the BBC or govt tell you that day. So over and out.
It’s a conspiracy by WHO?
And the Government? And the Government of France. And Germany. And the US. And Brazil. And India. And Poland. And Czechia. And Spain, and Portugal, and Ireland, and Canada, and Australia, and New Zealand, and Switzerland, and Belgium, and the Netherlands, and Denmark, and Mexico, and Chile, and Peru, and Norway, and...
... or maybe they’re all just really gullible while Toby Young can see the One Truth.
Lucky for them all that so many more people died of completely unrelated causes than normal, while hospitals got mysteriously overwhelmed by people presenting with acute respiratory illnesses here and all over the world.
Probably all lying, though.
It is amusing to see someone relentlessly parroting the Lockdown Sceptics/Ivor Cummins/ Claire Craig lines no matter how often they’ve been wrong and then claim others “parrot [a] narrative.”
You might want to consider that I say these things because I’ve gone to the sources of the various data (from many independent sources) and noticed that they all adhere with logic, maths, and what we already know of science. Which may indeed be “mainstream”.
Versus grabbing an isolated non-epidemiologist making claims on dodgy logic that you jusge must be true because he says what you want to be true...
If I could be arsed I'd change my handle to SidmouthObserver because that is where me and the Mrs are in the process of moving to - and lowering the average age of the place as a result! It's a fine little town, I have to say, surrounded by the most magnificent country. We now have our dream: a home by the sea. The only problem is a Tory MP with a rock solid majority, but we'll live with that ;-)
I know Sidmouth well. I was in Seaton a few days ago visiting parents. Lyme Regis is best town in vicinity IMO. Branscombe is a pretty village. On your way down pop in to Yellow Deli in Honiton - it's a terrific place:
Lyme is a place we have been to many times, which is what led us to look down in that part of the world. I agree, it's great. Very tough to buy in, though, as there is not great availability. Thanks for the Honiton tip!
If I could be arsed I'd change my handle to SidmouthObserver because that is where me and the Mrs are in the process of moving to - and lowering the average age of the place as a result! It's a fine little town, I have to say, surrounded by the most magnificent country. We now have our dream: a home by the sea. The only problem is a Tory MP with a rock solid majority, but we'll live with that ;-)
Congratulations
We bought our home by the sea in 1975 (within 100 yards) raised our three children and now have our grandchildren playing with the toys their parents had.
Of course my wife being a Scot never threw anything away so lots of fun and nostalgia
And in NW London. Not welcome. Really irritating decision by god. It's not going to settle though. Not cold enough.
Didn't realise you lived in London, hello fellow Londoner!
Oh yes. Been here since I was 17 apart from some spells abroad. I'd struggle anywhere else, I think. Nothing specific just the feeling.
Looking at a family break in London @kinabalu@MaxPB I know you guys are close to Hampstead Heath which I've never been to,despite numerous visits to London. Do you think we should rent somewhere close to Hampstead Heath or go for central London, as usual, and travel up. Can't decide.
If I could be arsed I'd change my handle to SidmouthObserver because that is where me and the Mrs are in the process of moving to - and lowering the average age of the place as a result! It's a fine little town, I have to say, surrounded by the most magnificent country. We now have our dream: a home by the sea. The only problem is a Tory MP with a rock solid majority, but we'll live with that ;-)
Congrats on the move... Have a soft spot for Leamington having spent my student days there, but hard to beat Devon!
I do not understand why the government seems to be so keen to introduce this Vaccine Passport/I.D. card scheme before it has been shown to be essential. I understand that under some circumstances it might be necessary, but it is too early to say that yet as the vaccination programme still has a long way to go.
To defend the government, they likely have war gamed scenarios (issues solutions) going forward, to the degree the rest of us havn’t.
I’m not sure it’s a mercy for cyclefree to have unfettered access to porn. It should be banned, not just licensed, it can be as addictive and damaging to people’s well being as drugs and alcohol. It’s a sin in so many ways.
You clearly have no understanding of human nature. Porn - like alcohol, tobacco and drugs - is very popular because people enjoy it. Banning popular vices is always a favourite of the righteous and always ends in failure and enriching the criminal underground.
And just for the avoidance of doubt, I have no use/liking for porn, tobacco or drugs, but I do get through maybe half a bottle of wine a week.
I don’t understand the human condition, by hoping for governments to assess change and intervene where good to do so?
What’s the point of a government that doesn’t intervene in a changing world? There’s always good cultivation to be done.
I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the subject of the London property market, although clearly London based professionals will skew heavily remain.
Why the hell we are still allowing that kind of thing to go on whilst planning on the UK population being subject to internal passports and mass testing is beyond me. I can only think that the Tory Party is in hock to the travel industry and airlines. If there is one thing the UK has consistenly screwed up throughout the pandemic it is travel.
Why isn't Starmer smashing the government on this every single day. I don't understand why all of the establishment have simply ignored the border.
Its very simple. We Had to leave the EU so that we could Take Back Control of our borders and stop people coming in. The Tories have done this, Labour opposed it. Labour should Shut Up complaining about our border being Closed and instead Cheer On the good old PM in his plans to Reopen our Closed border so we can go to Marbelloh and eat Egg and Chips on holiday.
Yes I know, this is the opposite of reality. But this is what the wazzocks out there believe. Labour can't attack the government for leaving open a border which Sneering Priti has definitely Shut.
Rather ironic that you mention ‘sneering Priti’ in a comment that is drenched with snobbish contempt for your fellow Britons, sorry, ‘the wazzocks out there who eat egg and chips’
"Egg and chips" (which I like btw) is a classic and oft-used signifier of, not so much class, but of cultural limitations and predictability and downmarketness. For example, the tedious husband of Shirley Valentine only ever wanted "chips and egg" for his dinner on a Tuesday. Every Tuesday. It drove her off to a new and richer, more enlightened life in Greece. And Sergeant Lewis in Inspector Morse would often say he was looking forward to having egg and chips for his "tea" (much to his boss's amused disdain). Although funnily enough, and just to show how these things don't always scan perfectly across to the political sphere, Lewis would have certainly voted Remain, whereas Morse might well have been a Leaver.
And in NW London. Not welcome. Really irritating decision by god. It's not going to settle though. Not cold enough.
Didn't realise you lived in London, hello fellow Londoner!
Oh yes. Been here since I was 17 apart from some spells abroad. I'd struggle anywhere else, I think. Nothing specific just the feeling.
Looking at a family break in London @kinabalu@MaxPB I know you guys are close to Hampstead Heath which I've never been to,despite numerous visits to London. Do you think we should rent somewhere close to Hampstead Heath or go for central London, as usual, and travel up. Can't decide.
Hampstead is a lovely place to stay. Would recommend staying in actual Hampstead too, rather than Kilburn or Swiss Cottage.
I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the subject of the London property market, although clearly London based professionals will skew heavily remain.
Unlimited immigration from the EU has contributed to the stupid house prices.
That said, I'd have voted remain if Osborne had promised to get interest rates to 3% by the end of 2018.
If I could be arsed I'd change my handle to SidmouthObserver because that is where me and the Mrs are in the process of moving to - and lowering the average age of the place as a result! It's a fine little town, I have to say, surrounded by the most magnificent country. We now have our dream: a home by the sea. The only problem is a Tory MP with a rock solid majority, but we'll live with that ;-)
I know Sidmouth well. I was in Seaton a few days ago visiting parents. Lyme Regis is best town in vicinity IMO. Branscombe is a pretty village. On your way down pop in to Yellow Deli in Honiton - it's a terrific place:
Lyme is a place we have been to many times, which is what led us to look down in that part of the world. I agree, it's great. Very tough to buy in, though, as there is not great availability. Thanks for the Honiton tip!
Beer is a lovely village too.
To be honest though - I've been down to Seaton a hundred times and the area is a little bit oldie for me - just personal taste I know.
Blackdown Hills are very agreeable. On balance I probably favour a little inland rather than the coast. Seaton Wetlands is well worth a visit as is Holyford Woods if you like a walk in quiet nature.
These arguments for the introduction of the internal passport fall apart like a wet paper bag.
It's about protection of staff - in which case why has Johnson already said they won't be applicable for many venues?
It's because Covid is some unique emergency. Yes it's a nasty virus and can cause complications but now the vast majority of the vulnerable population have been vaccinated, you can apply the same argument to influenza and the flu vaccine.
It's sledgehammer to crack a nut stuff. And yes I'd much rather attend a venue that wasn't demanding to know whether I'd either been vaxxed, had Covid anti-bodies or taken a recent test.
As a society we seem to be totally unwilling to allow individuals to weigh up the risks for themselves as we emerge into a future where the virus will be a background issue but the protection of the health system has been achieved.
If its a public health policy, the very first place that should be included is the tube. There is nowhere else that comes close to its impact in spreading germs around not just London but as London is so inter connected also to the wider country.
That it is not included is clear evidence that it is not a public health policy, but at best theatre to encourage youngsters to take the vaccine in greater numbers, or more likely the start of a permanent ID card scheme.
This is (re: the tube) of course an excellent point. The Government's general approach for combatting the spread of Covid has been to ban all activities which are "non-essential" whilst mitigating the dangers of those which they have to treat as essential. Public transport of course being in the latter group. The basic mitigation (other than masks and some measures to impose social distancing by fencing off seats) being to reduce usage to essential workers (everyone else being required to work from home).
But once the working from home guidance, and limits on non-essential activities are lifted then they have to accept that public transports and the tube in particular will start to become very busy again. Yes they'll still probably have masks to hold the line, but really, what's the point in protecting people in nightclubs and other crowded venues, if the protections on the tube are so flimsy?
The tube has about 100m passenger journeys per month in normal times. A decent proportion of those will be in more cramped and close conditions than any nightclub dancefloor let alone a bar, pub, theatre, sports stadia. It has poor ventilation.
That is before considering similarly crowded trains, trams and buses throughout the country.
If covid spreads again as we open up, it will be mostly from public transport, not hospitality venues.
Once again, that's missing the point a bit. Does it matter if a million people per day get COVID it only 100 of them turn up in hospital? The vaccines are primarily a tool to stop people needing hospital treatment and they are extremely effective at that.
Vaccine passports have got no utility that scenario.
Until WHO changed the definition of herd immunity, medics. recognised T cell immunity which is how a large population could mostly defeat a relatively new virus (SARS CoV 2 is ~80% similar to SARS 1 and of course some common colds are coronaviruses).
T cells are part of the reason why in a two week period only ~20% of passengers on the Diamond Princess became infected (NB in a longer period, it's thought that more would catch it but certainly not 100%).
The DP was an interesting trial because it was unintended and wouldn't normally be carried out due to 'ethics'. 0.37% died out of a ship population with an average age of ~60. There are proven treatments tested since then inclo Ivermectin, HCQ, vitamin D particularly.
Ioannidis recently published a paper estimating the IFR at 0.15%, or 0.05% if aged under 70.
Compulsory vaccination for an IFR of 0.15, let alone 0.05%? Go **** yourself, Gove and Johnson.
1 - T-cells provide a component of immunity but not, by their very nature, sterilising immunity that prevents transmission. As pointed out in detail by Shane Crotty, the immunologist who identified coronavirus cross-reactivity in SARS-CoV-2
2 - The cross-reactivity from common cold coronaviruses (which comprise only 20% of common cold infections in the first place) was studied and found to provide zero benefit in actually resisting covid - the T-cells were stimulated to react, but did not attack the virus at all. The common denialist meme that other coronavirus immunity protects against SARS-CoV-2 was comprehensively disproven.
3 - Ioannidis paper wasn't recent; it was several months ago, and was ripped apart by the wider community for dodgy assumptions, excluding any data that disagreed with it (of which there was much), and incorporating very dodgy serological data (which was since shown to be wrong) simply because it seemed to support his original idea. His latest paper was an attempt to defend it despite it being patently disproved by the IFR in many countries, including incorporating personal attacks on those who dismembered it in the first place.
4 - The IFR is neither 0.15% nor 0.05% as can be shown by the fact that the population death rate in many areas is considerably worse than that already.
Re 4, see inter alia WHO advice to doctors to define COVID deaths contrary to the normal past medical practice. Unprecedented. Same with a few other WHO rule changes in 2020.
The UK had ~10,000 deaths where COVID was the sole cause of death. Some deaths were defined as COVID despite the person clearly having succumbed to their cancer, trauma, MI or similar. Hardly anyone has questioned the 28 day rule, possibly because NHS trusts would sack them ... like they'll probably sack the consultant who pointed out the worrying rate of vaccine side effects among his/her colleagues. (this has been widely discussed abroad but the UK has been rather secretive ... I wonder why.)
If some of the figures you want to believe for 'COVID deaths' are correct, the implied deaths from cancer, MI, etc fall to 50-75% less than normal rates. This is vanishingly improbable.
You of all people on here seem to be destined to parrot forever the mainstream narrative and whatever the BBC or govt tell you that day. So over and out.
You seriously believe that Covid caused 10,000 deaths?
If so why are excess deaths twelve times that figure?
125k excess deaths is probably the most accurate figure for Covid deaths we can rely upon.
If IFR was 0.15% then over 83.3 million people in the UK would have been infected by now.
And in NW London. Not welcome. Really irritating decision by god. It's not going to settle though. Not cold enough.
Didn't realise you lived in London, hello fellow Londoner!
Oh yes. Been here since I was 17 apart from some spells abroad. I'd struggle anywhere else, I think. Nothing specific just the feeling.
Looking at a family break in London @kinabalu@MaxPB I know you guys are close to Hampstead Heath which I've never been to,despite numerous visits to London. Do you think we should rent somewhere close to Hampstead Heath or go for central London, as usual, and travel up. Can't decide.
Hampstead is a lovely place to stay. Would recommend staying in actual Hampstead too, rather than Kilburn or Swiss Cottage.
I'd second that. Couple of very "atmospheric" Irish boozers in Kilburn but that was BC and in any case not the ticket for a family minibreak.
Why the hell we are still allowing that kind of thing to go on whilst planning on the UK population being subject to internal passports and mass testing is beyond me. I can only think that the Tory Party is in hock to the travel industry and airlines. If there is one thing the UK has consistenly screwed up throughout the pandemic it is travel.
Why isn't Starmer smashing the government on this every single day. I don't understand why all of the establishment have simply ignored the border.
Its very simple. We Had to leave the EU so that we could Take Back Control of our borders and stop people coming in. The Tories have done this, Labour opposed it. Labour should Shut Up complaining about our border being Closed and instead Cheer On the good old PM in his plans to Reopen our Closed border so we can go to Marbelloh and eat Egg and Chips on holiday.
Yes I know, this is the opposite of reality. But this is what the wazzocks out there believe. Labour can't attack the government for leaving open a border which Sneering Priti has definitely Shut.
Rather ironic that you mention ‘sneering Priti’ in a comment that is drenched with snobbish contempt for your fellow Britons, sorry, ‘the wazzocks out there who eat egg and chips’
"Egg and chips" (which I like btw) is a classic and oft-used signifier of, not so much class, but of cultural limitations and predictability and downmarketness. For example, the tedious husband of Shirley Valentine only ever wanted "chips and egg" for his dinner on a Tuesday. Every Tuesday. It drove her off to a new and richer, more enlightened life in Greece. And Sergeant Lewis in Inspector Morse would often say he was looking forward to having egg and chips for his "tea" (much to his boss's amused disdain). Although funnily enough, and just to show how these things don't always scan perfectly across to the political sphere, Lewis would have certainly voted Remain, whereas Morse might well have been a Leaver.
Shirley V's husband had steak and chips every Tuesday, didn't he? It was her forgetting to get the steak and making egg and chips instead that got his goat.
Egg and chips is the best vegetarian meal known to man. Throw in three spicy chorizo sausages on top and you have my choice for my last ever meal.
I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the subject of the London property market, although clearly London based professionals will skew heavily remain.
Unlimited immigration from the EU has contributed to the stupid house prices.
That said, I'd have voted remain if Osborne had promised to get interest rates to 3% by the end of 2018.
Well, yes, net immigration will affect house prices, but it is by no means the only factor in play. The link to the 2016 referendum appears tenuous at best.
So why don't we pivot the debate a little and ask the question - who is planning to voluntarily take up the government on the offer of a twice-weekly test (in England at this point)?
I'll take up the Govt on the offer of a twice weekly negative result. Not so keen on doing the test though.
Yep - seems a fundamental contradiction in the claim that taking two Covid tests a week (and under threat of sudden enforced mandatory quarantine if you are unfortunate enough to trigger a positive result) heralds “ a return to normal life”...
I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the subject of the London property market, although clearly London based professionals will skew heavily remain.
Unlimited immigration from the EU has contributed to the stupid house prices.
That said, I'd have voted remain if Osborne had promised to get interest rates to 3% by the end of 2018.
Well, yes, net immigration will affect house prices, but it is by no means the only factor in play. The link to the 2016 referendum appears tenuous at best.
I live in Woking and work in London (well, pre-COVID anyway). House prices, immigration and interest rates were a big factor behind my vote to leave.
If I could be arsed I'd change my handle to SidmouthObserver because that is where me and the Mrs are in the process of moving to - and lowering the average age of the place as a result! It's a fine little town, I have to say, surrounded by the most magnificent country. We now have our dream: a home by the sea. The only problem is a Tory MP with a rock solid majority, but we'll live with that ;-)
I know Sidmouth well. I was in Seaton a few days ago visiting parents. Lyme Regis is best town in vicinity IMO. Branscombe is a pretty village. On your way down pop in to Yellow Deli in Honiton - it's a terrific place:
Lyme is a place we have been to many times, which is what led us to look down in that part of the world. I agree, it's great. Very tough to buy in, though, as there is not great availability. Thanks for the Honiton tip!
Beer is a lovely village too.
To be honest though - I've been down to Seaton a hundred times and the area is a little bit oldie for me - just personal taste I know.
Blackdown Hills are very agreeable. On balance I probably favour a little inland rather than the coast. Seaton Wetlands is well worth a visit as is Holyford Woods if you like a walk in quiet nature.
It's very oldie, but then so are we - or getting there. I think they'll be a lot of moving to the British seaside over the coming years, though, among all age groups, as remote working and Brexit making continental Europe tougher to live in work their way through. I reckon the south-west is going to be a real hotspot.
If I could be arsed I'd change my handle to SidmouthObserver because that is where me and the Mrs are in the process of moving to - and lowering the average age of the place as a result! It's a fine little town, I have to say, surrounded by the most magnificent country. We now have our dream: a home by the sea. The only problem is a Tory MP with a rock solid majority, but we'll live with that ;-)
Oh dear we will be neighbours....there goes the neighbourhood as moving to exmouth in june / july
Comments
Also agree on the next batch of vaccines. It's not just mRNA, the Novavax approach is actually pretty similar but it skips the mRNA step and puts the virus protein directly in the body rather than the mRNA that instructs the body to make the viral proteins. Between the Novavax deal and CureVac we'll have domestic manufacturing of two very advanced vaccine types in time for any major variants.
Remember the incredible data that SK gave its people. Text messages to citizens warning them they were nearing a cluster of infections down the road. STAY AWAY.
I guarantee every advanced nation on the planet will be studying SK’s covid policy and trying to learn from it. Just as SK learned from their own experience with SARS, so they were ready for Covid19
https://twitter.com/niall_gooch/status/1378253819138609154?s=21
https://twitter.com/niall_gooch/status/1378255232057106432?s=21
I don't think we are a million miles apart on this.
What about 1) and 2) in my original post though?
"Let's have something upbeat saying we are no longer racist and people should stop banging on about it. That's what most of our voters think after all. And the Left will hate it, lol."
Just shut the fucking borders to anyone who hasn’t got a pretty dramatic need to come here. None of us are allowed to go THERE
Still, this government came to power riding the ultimate culture war issue (Brexit), so it’s the campaigning tool they’re most familiar with - expect a /lot/ of this kind of stuff in the next couple of years.
🙋
The tools for a ruthless push back have been handed to us. The counter revolution is in earnest.
We can emulate some of it, but not all.
South Korea is the one to go for. It is also less economically painful. SK’s GDP dropped by just 1% in 2020. NZ fell by 3% - much worse
SK also avoided harsh national lockdowns
The Tories.
I opposed GDPR as an inapproriate state intrusion. What was your opinion on GDPR?
1) I would completely oppose.
2) It is still the business making the choice not the state, the state is just creating the infrastructure they can use. I'd rather not have the government spending lots of money on this, but the state isn't telling people what to do so there seems to be little difference between 2) and 3).
On 1) and 2) I agree. Should not be costly, personally I'd prefer 3), plus I'd say that the government shouldn't actively encourage domestic use and shouldn't apply to any public sector settings so as to set an example to private businesses.
So we got there in the end. Not miles apart. Phew.
Anyway, now we can ask Samsung.
The further lesson is that if you start testing and control measures early enough, before exponential growth makes it impossible, you can keep on top of viruses without spending tens of billions.
Our plan in place was designed for influenza, we didn't change it quickly enough, and we didn't implement control measures quickly enough, either.
We are neither SK nor NZ, and whatever we did, or do in future, will be different from both - but there are lessons to be learned from both.
The UK had ~10,000 deaths where COVID was the sole cause of death. Some deaths were defined as COVID despite the person clearly having succumbed to their cancer, trauma, MI or similar. Hardly anyone has questioned the 28 day rule, possibly because NHS trusts would sack them ... like they'll probably sack the consultant who pointed out the worrying rate of vaccine side effects among his/her colleagues. (this has been widely discussed abroad but the UK has been rather secretive ... I wonder why.)
If some of the figures you want to believe for 'COVID deaths' are correct, the implied deaths from cancer, MI, etc fall to 50-75% less than normal rates. This is vanishingly improbable.
You of all people on here seem to be destined to parrot forever the mainstream narrative and whatever the BBC or govt tell you that day. So over and out.
Yes I know, this is the opposite of reality. But this is what the wazzocks out there believe. Labour can't attack the government for leaving open a border which Sneering Priti has definitely Shut.
U.S. searches for new AstraZeneca vaccine producer after Emergent mix-up
Officials are telling AstraZeneca to cut ties with Emergent entirely, a senior health official said.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/05/astrazeneca-vaccine-producer-479035
(Note that the J&J vaccine will quite possibly be prone to a similar incidence of the very rare clotting effects, given that it's a similar technology - and at least one case has already been reported.)
We've made a lot of progress in this area over the last few decades. It would be a shame to go into reverse.
The office's 300-year history proves that the best leaders are often lazy charlatans’
“ Johnson is also typical in being a natural performer, who loves showing off and playing to the gallery. Bien-pensant intellectuals shudder at this sort of thing, because they think politicians should be like university lecturers, dropping abstract nouns into the dead silence of the seminar room. Yet in reality, successful politicians are almost always entertainers. This was true even in the pre-democratic age, when they needed to perform to the court and the monarch. And most successful modern Prime Ministers have been shameless actors, gleefully pandering to the expectations of their audiences.”
https://unherd.com/2021/04/prime-ministers-dont-need-to-be-virtuous/
In any case, does it really matter? - what is of more concern is the unequal playing field against other countries statistics.
The UK isn't what I would call tourism friendly at present what with everything being shut.
https://twitter.com/BendyGardiner/status/1378990088084983808
She is over here to collect her daughter from boarding school and was out for a lovely long walk in the countryside.
She was in self-isolation ...
No mask.
I just smiled at her and chuckled to myself. Good for her.
If you look carefully into the picture you can see a cricket pitch and a shop selling cream teas.
Needs a new no fly zone though to include Turkish drones killing innocent Kurds in Northern mountains by sound of today's Guardian report.
Government are gardeners are they not? Gardens need tending, forcing and pruning. You can’t just leave it to nature, or all the pretty flowers will get raped and murdered. ☹️.
I look to government for good cultivation, not just pushing back the boundaries of individual freedom to create a nature state.
https://www.devonlive.com/whats-on/inside-mysterious-yellow-deli-devon-4509618
Hopefully an easter effect
And the Government?
And the Government of France. And Germany. And the US. And Brazil. And India. And Poland. And Czechia. And Spain, and Portugal, and Ireland, and Canada, and Australia, and New Zealand, and Switzerland, and Belgium, and the Netherlands, and Denmark, and Mexico, and Chile, and Peru, and Norway, and...
... or maybe they’re all just really gullible while Toby Young can see the One Truth.
Lucky for them all that so many more people died of completely unrelated causes than normal, while hospitals got mysteriously overwhelmed by people presenting with acute respiratory illnesses here and all over the world.
Probably all lying, though.
It is amusing to see someone relentlessly parroting the Lockdown Sceptics/Ivor Cummins/ Claire Craig lines no matter how often they’ve been wrong and then claim others “parrot [a] narrative.”
You might want to consider that I say these things because I’ve gone to the sources of the various data (from many independent sources) and noticed that they all adhere with logic, maths, and what we already know of science. Which may indeed be “mainstream”.
Versus grabbing an isolated non-epidemiologist making claims on dodgy logic that you jusge must be true because he says what you want to be true...
We bought our home by the sea in 1975 (within 100 yards) raised our three children and now have our grandchildren playing with the toys their parents had.
Of course my wife being a Scot never threw anything away so lots of fun and nostalgia
What’s the point of a government that doesn’t intervene in a changing world? There’s always good cultivation to be done.
That said, I'd have voted remain if Osborne had promised to get interest rates to 3% by the end of 2018.
To be honest though - I've been down to Seaton a hundred times and the area is a little bit oldie for me - just personal taste I know.
Blackdown Hills are very agreeable. On balance I probably favour a little inland rather than the coast. Seaton Wetlands is well worth a visit as is Holyford Woods if you like a walk in quiet nature.
If so why are excess deaths twelve times that figure?
125k excess deaths is probably the most accurate figure for Covid deaths we can rely upon.
If IFR was 0.15% then over 83.3 million people in the UK would have been infected by now.
Egg and chips is the best vegetarian meal known to man. Throw in three spicy chorizo sausages on top and you have my choice for my last ever meal.