The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
No, that's completely wrong. No-one is mandating anything. What they are saying is (possibly, if the scheme goes ahead) that proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. And that means that no-one is being denied anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The alternative without the certificate scheme in place would be that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated would be denied entry, because the venue would have to be closed as it currently is.
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
Except you're putting the status quo alternative as that venues remain closed.
That's not the case in either policy or law. The status quo alternative, if no more votes in Parliament occur, is that closures are due to expire and then venues are due to be able to open to everyone. The policy position is that closures and restrictions expire 21/6.
You're acting with this exactly like you did with Theresa May's absurd continuous extensions of Article 50 - acting as if continuously extending the deadline is the viable status quo and nothing should change from that.
The closures are temporary and have a sunset clause in the law. No further action and venues are free to open to everyone automatically, that is the alternative not closure.
Yes - exactly this. @Richard_Nabavi has drunk the Kool-Aid and believes that the new normal is complete closure of everything unless we do what the government wants, a complete inversion of what the government originally told us - namely, a temporary closure until vaccination, deaths and cases down (not eliminated) and the NHS not overwhelmed.
But as is clear the government was already planning Covid ID cards then so was lying. As it does every time any of its Ministers open their mouths. So safe to assume they are lying now when they say it will only be for a year or whatever today's lie is.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
No, that's completely wrong. No-one is mandating anything. What they are saying is (possibly, if the scheme goes ahead) that proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. And that means that no-one is being denied anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The alternative without the certificate scheme in place would be that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated would be denied entry, because the venue would have to be closed as it currently is.
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
Again, where is the evidence that you wouldn't otherwise be able to do these things? Boris saying so doesn't make it true.
All this airy talk of ‘suspending’ this or that vaccine kinda ignores the fact the world is heading into a deadly fourth wave of a pandemic. Cases and deaths are rising again globally. Millions have died already. Economies are tottering.
The UK’s relative, recent good fortune on vaccines maybe obscures this distressing truth, and gives us a false sense of safety. The virus is far from beaten. Every infection is a possible new mutation - and a 5th wave, or a 6th.
Any of the major vaccines is better than none.
Agreed.
But the suggestion was rather that those countries with access to various vaccine options use different ones for different cohorts. In view of the vaccine hesitancy problem in many places, that's not a bad idea.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
Coronavirus vaccine is no different to any other vaccine. All vaccines carry some tiny risk. All vaccines kill some tiny number of people. (Not even tiny in the case of smallpox).
Some countries (e.g. Italy) and some US states (Washington) do not permit unvaccinated children (MMR, polio, etc) to attend school (unless they have a valid medical exemption certificate). It has certainly been threatened before in the UK (e.g., at the height of the Swansea measles outbreak). Normally, the threat is enough.
For any individual, the safest thing is not to get vaccinated, but to allow everyone else to bear the tiny, tiny, tiny risk. That is why the anti-vax movement is so dangerous. There is a kernel of hard, selfish truth in their delusions.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
No, that's completely wrong. No-one is mandating anything. What they are saying is (possibly, if the scheme goes ahead) that proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. And that means that no-one is being denied anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The alternative without the certificate scheme in place would be that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated would be denied entry, because the venue would have to be closed as it currently is.
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
Except you're putting the status quo alternative as that venues remain closed.
That's not the case in either policy or law. The status quo alternative, if no more votes in Parliament occur, is that closures are due to expire and then venues are due to be able to open to everyone. The policy position is that closures and restrictions expire 21/6.
You're acting with this exactly like you did with Theresa May's absurd continuous extensions of Article 50 - acting as if continuously extending the deadline is the viable status quo and nothing should change from that.
The closures are temporary and have a sunset clause in the law. No further action and venues are free to open to everyone automatically, that is the alternative not closure.
What a weird post. Of course the alternative is closure in the scenario where vaccine passports might be needed. Are you seriously suggesting that the government, and parliament, would simply shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, we've lost control again and lots of people are getting seriously ill, but we can't do anything about it because we'd have to renew the legislation?"
As I've said before, it's baffling that people find the logic so hard. No-one, least of all Boris, wants any of these restrictions. And maybe they won't be necessary. If they are not, great. But why is it so hard to understand that if a complete relaxation of restrictions isn't possible for a while, vaccine certificates are better than outright closure (or social-distancing regulations which make the venue unviable)?
WRT to vaccine passports/cettificates it does appear to me that the actual debate we are having is an encouraging sign of progress against thevirus itself. We are, as I see it, in a strange time where we can see the end of the pandemic (at least here) but we are not there yet. It is like a shoreline on the other side of a narrow but fast flowing river - some want to cautiously build a bridge, others want to just jump in and swim over ASAP despite what appear to be some risks. If you step back and think about it it is a good place to be.
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
A solid take. I'm prepared to put my entire (and newly boosted with Hartlepool) superforecaster rep on the line for this one and state that there will be no vaccine passports for widespread domestic use in this country. Maybe one or two exceptions but certainly not for "normal" things like public transport, hospitality and retail. It will essentially be for international travel only.
Further thought. It is in the government's partisan political interest to keep reminding the public that other countries are way behind us on vaccines and hence that the pandemic may be over here but it continues to rage elsewhere. It would be easy (but imo wrong) to read into such talk that they plan to welsh on the roadmap for overseas holidays. They might, given the political angle, but on balance I think they'll stick to 17 May (with a traffic light system).
I agree with all of this Kinabalu (apart from the "superforecaster" bit) and I said this yesterday only to be summarily executed by Contrarian for being a Boris lickspittle!
A related anecdote: I.m just back from a stroll round our village and stopped to chat with a villager who is looking forward to his son and family visiting from the States. I reported last week that my ex-neighbor who moved to the Philippines is doing similar though will spend 10 days in Singapore first to avoid Red List quarantine in a UK hotel. So non-UK citizens are enjoying freedom to travel when we are forbidden to leave the country by law; UK citizens are actively being disadvantaged by this government.
I cannot comprehend why this is not creating more uproar. What is your view?
It's happening. I spoke to a UK dude in Mexico the other week who claimed he was there because his wife needed plastic surgery on a polo injury that was unavailable here. Hit in the face by a ball (or whatever they are called in polo) apparently. During lockdown. Sounded legit.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
Coronavirus vaccine is no different to any other vaccine. All vaccines carry some tiny risk. All vaccines kill some tiny number of people. (Not even tiny in the case of smallpox).
Some countries (e.g. Italy) and some US states (Washington) do not permit unvaccinated children (MMR, polio, etc) to attend school (unless they have a valid medical exemption certificate). It has certainly been threatened before in the UK (e.g., at the height of the Swansea measles outbreak). Normally, the threat is enough.
For any individual, the safest thing is not to get vaccinated, but to allow everyone else to bear the tiny, tiny, tiny risk. That is why the anti-vax movement is so dangerous. There is a kernel of hard, selfish truth in their delusions.
Agreed - but only if they can avoid catching it before herd immunity kicks in.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
WRT to vaccine passports/cettificates it does appear to me that the actual debate we are having is an encouraging sign of progress against thevirus itself. We are, as I see it, in a strange time where we can see the end of the pandemic (at least here) but we are not there yet. It is like a shoreline on the other side of a narrow but fast flowing river - some want to cautiously build a bridge, others want to just jump in and swim over ASAP despite what appear to be some risks. If you step back and think about it it is a good place to be.
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
A solid take. I'm prepared to put my entire (and newly boosted with Hartlepool) superforecaster rep on the line for this one and state that there will be no vaccine passports for widespread domestic use in this country. Maybe one or two exceptions but certainly not for "normal" things like public transport, hospitality and retail. It will essentially be for international travel only.
Further thought. It is in the government's partisan political interest to keep reminding the public that other countries are way behind us on vaccines and hence that the pandemic may be over here but it continues to rage elsewhere. It would be easy (but imo wrong) to read into such talk that they plan to welsh on the roadmap for overseas holidays. They might, given the political angle, but on balance I think they'll stick to 17 May (with a traffic light system).
I agree with all of this Kinabalu (apart from the "superforecaster" bit) and I said this yesterday only to be summarily executed by Contrarian for being a Boris lickspittle!
A related anecdote: I.m just back from a stroll round our village and stopped to chat with a villager who is looking forward to his son and family visiting from the States. I reported last week that my ex-neighbor who moved to the Philippines is doing similar though will spend 10 days in Singapore first to avoid Red List quarantine in a UK hotel. So non-UK citizens are enjoying freedom to travel when we are forbidden to leave the country by law; UK citizens are actively being disadvantaged by this government.
I cannot comprehend why this is not creating more uproar. What is your view?
It's happening. I spoke to a UK dude in Mexico the other week who claimed he was there because his wife needed plastic surgery on a polo injury that was unavailable here. Hit in the face by a ball (or whatever they are called in polo) apparently. During lockdown. Sounded legit.
Sounds like one of the permitted exemptions, or maybe he left for Mexico before tier 4/ full lockdown came in? I'm talking about visits to the UK for any reason - just to visit family. I asked the villager whether he was missing not seeing his family in the States. He said "no because they are coming here".
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
Then why are you making such a trivial point?
GOVERNMENT ASKS PEOPLE TO TAKE TINY RISK DURING GLOBAL PLAGUE BUT IT’S NOT COMPULSORY
I am making the point because every infringement in our liberties should be dissected, discussed, debated to the nth degree.
I know that plenty here on PB welcome every restrictive measure the govt could think of and many others are keeping a close eye on their neighbours for infringement but we (ie you) are in danger of forgetting the type of society we are in and are in danger of becoming.
As long as you are safe you are happy to give up your liberty.
Lockdown is a far far greater restriction on my liberty than anything else being proposed. Eg I loathe being unable to travel the world and if a vaxport is the price I must pay to fly, bring it on.
I likewise hate masks, sanitizers, social distancing, shuttered shops, ruined businesses, vaccine wars, no live music, no theatres or galleries or pubs or restaurants, stupid fucking walks in freezing parks, staring at ducks all the time, and the sound of parakeets screeching over eerily silent cities.
If the government has ideas for ways to bring this epochal nightmare to an early end, I am eager to listen
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
No, that's completely wrong. No-one is mandating anything. What they are saying is (possibly, if the scheme goes ahead) that proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. And that means that no-one is being denied anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The alternative without the certificate scheme in place would be that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated would be denied entry, because the venue would have to be closed as it currently is.
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
Except you're putting the status quo alternative as that venues remain closed.
That's not the case in either policy or law. The status quo alternative, if no more votes in Parliament occur, is that closures are due to expire and then venues are due to be able to open to everyone. The policy position is that closures and restrictions expire 21/6.
You're acting with this exactly like you did with Theresa May's absurd continuous extensions of Article 50 - acting as if continuously extending the deadline is the viable status quo and nothing should change from that.
The closures are temporary and have a sunset clause in the law. No further action and venues are free to open to everyone automatically, that is the alternative not closure.
What a weird post. Of course the alternative is closure in the scenario where vaccine passports might be needed. Are you seriously suggesting that the government, and parliament, would simply shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, we've lost control again and lots of perople are getting seriously ill, but we can't do anything about it because we'd have to renew the legislation?"
As I've said before, it's baffling that people find the logic so hard. No-one, least of all Boris, wants any of these restrictions. And maybe they won't be necessary. If they are not, great. But why is it so hard to understand that if a complete relaxation of restrictions isn't possible for a while, vaccine certificates are better than outright closure (or social-distancing regulations which make the venue unviable)?
However - the only case in which that (restrictions severely curtailing socialising) would be needed is if the UK didn't have wide scale immunity, which we will have via vaccines.
As a result there are only two use good use-cases for vaccine passports - the month where we'll be teetering on the edge of natural R being below 1 this spring (for which the system will not be ready in time). Secondly, a situation where UK R is marginally above 1, which with these vaccines and a 90%+ takeup rate, can only occur if the vaccines are no longer effective, at which point a vaccine passport is pointless, because a vaccine would be no guarantee of anything.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Naked from the waist down? Jeez, times were tough.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
Coronavirus vaccine is no different to any other vaccine. All vaccines carry some tiny risk. All vaccines kill some tiny number of people. (Not even tiny in the case of smallpox).
Some countries (e.g. Italy) and some US states (Washington) do not permit unvaccinated children (MMR, polio, etc) to attend school (unless they have a valid medical exemption certificate). It has certainly been threatened before in the UK (e.g., at the height of the Swansea measles outbreak). Normally, the threat is enough.
For any individual, the safest thing is not to get vaccinated, but to allow everyone else to bear the tiny, tiny, tiny risk. That is why the anti-vax movement is so dangerous. There is a kernel of hard, selfish truth in their delusions.
Of course the vaccine is no different and carries risks. That is not my point. And interesting that other countries mandate that to take part in normal life a risk must be taken. That is what is being discussed here for the UK and therefore such a change in the UK I think needs more than a nod through.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
No, that's completely wrong. No-one is mandating anything. What they are saying is (possibly, if the scheme goes ahead) that proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. And that means that no-one is being denied anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The alternative without the certificate scheme in place would be that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated would be denied entry, because the venue would have to be closed as it currently is.
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
Except you're putting the status quo alternative as that venues remain closed.
That's not the case in either policy or law. The status quo alternative, if no more votes in Parliament occur, is that closures are due to expire and then venues are due to be able to open to everyone. The policy position is that closures and restrictions expire 21/6.
You're acting with this exactly like you did with Theresa May's absurd continuous extensions of Article 50 - acting as if continuously extending the deadline is the viable status quo and nothing should change from that.
The closures are temporary and have a sunset clause in the law. No further action and venues are free to open to everyone automatically, that is the alternative not closure.
What a weird post. Of course the alternative is closure in the scenario where vaccine passports might be needed. Are you seriously suggesting that the government, and parliament, would simply shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, we've lost control again and lots of people are getting seriously ill, but we can't do anything about it because we'd have to renew the legislation?"
As I've said before, it's baffling that people find the logic so hard. No-one, least of all Boris, wants any of these restrictions. And maybe they won't be necessary. If they are not, great. But why is it so hard to understand that if a complete relaxation of restrictions isn't possible for a while, vaccine certificates are better than outright closure (or social-distancing regulations which make the venue unviable)?
Richard we are now at the point, according to govt ministers, where "vaccine passports might be needed". They are flying kites (and no doubt looking at their poll ratings).
We have over half the country vaccinated however. And more every day. So yes, and as @YBarddCwsc has pointed out, individually it is rational not to take that risk and thereby have a free rider on everyone else who has been vaccinated.
But the compulsion, which "might be needed" to live a normal life is something we should debate the shit out of.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
Coronavirus vaccine is no different to any other vaccine. All vaccines carry some tiny risk. All vaccines kill some tiny number of people. (Not even tiny in the case of smallpox).
Some countries (e.g. Italy) and some US states (Washington) do not permit unvaccinated children (MMR, polio, etc) to attend school (unless they have a valid medical exemption certificate). It has certainly been threatened before in the UK (e.g., at the height of the Swansea measles outbreak). Normally, the threat is enough.
For any individual, the safest thing is not to get vaccinated, but to allow everyone else to bear the tiny, tiny, tiny risk. That is why the anti-vax movement is so dangerous. There is a kernel of hard, selfish truth in their delusions.
Of course the vaccine is no different and carries risks. That is not my point. And interesting that other countries mandate that to take part in normal life a risk must be taken. That is what is being discussed here for the UK and therefore such a change in the UK I think needs more than a nod through.
What change - I'm now at a complete loss as to what your argument is about?
The vaccine isn't compulsory and at the moment there is no requirement to have it.
WRT to vaccine passports/cettificates it does appear to me that the actual debate we are having is an encouraging sign of progress against thevirus itself. We are, as I see it, in a strange time where we can see the end of the pandemic (at least here) but we are not there yet. It is like a shoreline on the other side of a narrow but fast flowing river - some want to cautiously build a bridge, others want to just jump in and swim over ASAP despite what appear to be some risks. If you step back and think about it it is a good place to be.
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
A solid take. I'm prepared to put my entire (and newly boosted with Hartlepool) superforecaster rep on the line for this one and state that there will be no vaccine passports for widespread domestic use in this country. Maybe one or two exceptions but certainly not for "normal" things like public transport, hospitality and retail. It will essentially be for international travel only.
Further thought. It is in the government's partisan political interest to keep reminding the public that other countries are way behind us on vaccines and hence that the pandemic may be over here but it continues to rage elsewhere. It would be easy (but imo wrong) to read into such talk that they plan to welsh on the roadmap for overseas holidays. They might, given the political angle, but on balance I think they'll stick to 17 May (with a traffic light system).
I agree with all of this Kinabalu (apart from the "superforecaster" bit) and I said this yesterday only to be summarily executed by Contrarian for being a Boris lickspittle!
A related anecdote: I.m just back from a stroll round our village and stopped to chat with a villager who is looking forward to his son and family visiting from the States. I reported last week that my ex-neighbor who moved to the Philippines is doing similar though will spend 10 days in Singapore first to avoid Red List quarantine in a UK hotel. So non-UK citizens are enjoying freedom to travel when we are forbidden to leave the country by law; UK citizens are actively being disadvantaged by this government.
I cannot comprehend why this is not creating more uproar. What is your view?
It's happening. I spoke to a UK dude in Mexico the other week who claimed he was there because his wife needed plastic surgery on a polo injury that was unavailable here. Hit in the face by a ball (or whatever they are called in polo) apparently. During lockdown. Sounded legit.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Naked from the waist down? Jeez, times were tough.
I believe sporrans were permissible to save the dignity of Scottish regiments...
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Another poster happy to wave through any number of restrictions on our liberty with a cheery smile and wave.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Naked from the waist down? Jeez, times were tough.
I believe sporrans were permissible to save the dignity of Scottish regiments...
I thought the real Scottish regiments just wore a coating of woad.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
Then why are you making such a trivial point?
GOVERNMENT ASKS PEOPLE TO TAKE TINY RISK DURING GLOBAL PLAGUE BUT IT’S NOT COMPULSORY
I am making the point because every infringement in our liberties should be dissected, discussed, debated to the nth degree.
I know that plenty here on PB welcome every restrictive measure the govt could think of and many others are keeping a close eye on their neighbours for infringement but we (ie you) are in danger of forgetting the type of society we are in and are in danger of becoming.
As long as you are safe you are happy to give up your liberty.
Lockdown is a far far greater restriction on my liberty than anything else being proposed. Eg I loathe being unable to travel the world and if a vaxport is the price I must pay to fly, bring it on.
I likewise hate masks, sanitizers, social distancing, shuttered shops, ruined businesses, vaccine wars, no live music, no theatres or galleries or pubs or restaurants, stupid fucking walks in freezing parks, staring at ducks all the time, and the sound of parakeets screeching over eerily silent cities.
If the government has ideas for ways to bring this epochal nightmare to an early end, I am eager to listen
Absolutely. But the issue here is what the government is doing while we are all so frustrated, angry, and scared.
Each of its steps in eroding our personal freedoms (yes even if for the greater good) must be examined and queried. Because you know how governments can be.
At present we have all forgotten that all these measures were to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. At XX% vaccinated we/the NHS would be in a much better position.
Your last line says it all - you are in such a cowed, scared place (no offence, many people are) that you are willing to accept any measure on a nod.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Another poster happy to wave through any number of restrictions on our liberty with a cheery smile and wave.
Would you have argued against the blackout in world war 2? It was compulsory, and universal, it was a severe restriction on our liberty AND it caused thousands of deaths
" Joshua Livestro is an independent communications adviser and a member of the Committee on European Integration of the Advisory Council on International Affairs of the Dutch Foreign Ministry."
I'd maybe drop the word independent. HIs argument is embarrassing.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
Coronavirus vaccine is no different to any other vaccine. All vaccines carry some tiny risk. All vaccines kill some tiny number of people. (Not even tiny in the case of smallpox).
Some countries (e.g. Italy) and some US states (Washington) do not permit unvaccinated children (MMR, polio, etc) to attend school (unless they have a valid medical exemption certificate). It has certainly been threatened before in the UK (e.g., at the height of the Swansea measles outbreak). Normally, the threat is enough.
For any individual, the safest thing is not to get vaccinated, but to allow everyone else to bear the tiny, tiny, tiny risk. That is why the anti-vax movement is so dangerous. There is a kernel of hard, selfish truth in their delusions.
Of course the vaccine is no different and carries risks. That is not my point. And interesting that other countries mandate that to take part in normal life a risk must be taken. That is what is being discussed here for the UK and therefore such a change in the UK I think needs more than a nod through.
What change - I'm now at a complete loss as to what your argument is about?
The vaccine isn't compulsory and at the moment there is no requirement to have it.
We are pondering the proposed introduction of vaccine passports and whether one will be needed to live a normal life.
However - the only case in which that (restrictions severely curtailing socialising) would be needed is if the UK didn't have wide scale immunity, which we will have via vaccines.
As a result there are only two use good use-cases for vaccine passports - the month where we'll be teetering on the edge of natural R being below 1 this spring (for which the system will not be ready in time). Secondly, a situation where UK R is marginally above 1, which with these vaccines and a 90%+ takeup rate, can only occur if the vaccines are no longer effective, at which point a vaccine passport is pointless, because a vaccine would be no guarantee of anything.
You are partially right, but over-confident in your prediction. We don't know what the final vaccine take-up will be, although it's looking very good, and we don't know whether reduced vaccine efficacy as a result of variants getting hold is going to be a problem.
Your second point is wrong, though. Of course if vaccines become ineffective, there's no point asking for proof of vaccination. But if they become less, but not too much less, effective (say 75%), then there very much is. (R reduced by a factor of three, which is well worth having for mass events, but vaccinated individuals not so safe that we can simply let the unvaccinated risk infection if they want to).
So we just need to wait and see, but in the meantime the government (like other governments and the EU) is right to plan for the possibility that vaccine passports might be needed.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
Then why are you making such a trivial point?
GOVERNMENT ASKS PEOPLE TO TAKE TINY RISK DURING GLOBAL PLAGUE BUT IT’S NOT COMPULSORY
I am making the point because every infringement in our liberties should be dissected, discussed, debated to the nth degree.
I know that plenty here on PB welcome every restrictive measure the govt could think of and many others are keeping a close eye on their neighbours for infringement but we (ie you) are in danger of forgetting the type of society we are in and are in danger of becoming.
As long as you are safe you are happy to give up your liberty.
Lockdown is a far far greater restriction on my liberty than anything else being proposed. Eg I loathe being unable to travel the world and if a vaxport is the price I must pay to fly, bring it on.
I likewise hate masks, sanitizers, social distancing, shuttered shops, ruined businesses, vaccine wars, no live music, no theatres or galleries or pubs or restaurants, stupid fucking walks in freezing parks, staring at ducks all the time, and the sound of parakeets screeching over eerily silent cities.
If the government has ideas for ways to bring this epochal nightmare to an early end, I am eager to listen
Absolutely. But the issue here is what the government is doing while we are all so frustrated, angry, and scared.
Each of its steps in eroding our personal freedoms (yes even if for the greater good) must be examined and queried. Because you know how governments can be.
At present we have all forgotten that all these measures were to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. At XX% vaccinated we/the NHS would be in a much better position.
Your last line says it all - you are in such a cowed, scared place (no offence, many people are) that you are willing to accept any measure on a nod.
I’ve not accepted anything on a nod. From the beginning my position has been - make vaxports VOLUNTARY - sector by sector, firm by firm, pub by pub. I object to them being mandatory outside international travel
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
No, that's completely wrong. No-one is mandating anything. What they are saying is (possibly, if the scheme goes ahead) that proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. And that means that no-one is being denied anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The alternative without the certificate scheme in place would be that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated would be denied entry, because the venue would have to be closed as it currently is.
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
Except you're putting the status quo alternative as that venues remain closed.
That's not the case in either policy or law. The status quo alternative, if no more votes in Parliament occur, is that closures are due to expire and then venues are due to be able to open to everyone. The policy position is that closures and restrictions expire 21/6.
You're acting with this exactly like you did with Theresa May's absurd continuous extensions of Article 50 - acting as if continuously extending the deadline is the viable status quo and nothing should change from that.
The closures are temporary and have a sunset clause in the law. No further action and venues are free to open to everyone automatically, that is the alternative not closure.
What a weird post. Of course the alternative is closure in the scenario where vaccine passports might be needed. Are you seriously suggesting that the government, and parliament, would simply shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, we've lost control again and lots of people are getting seriously ill, but we can't do anything about it because we'd have to renew the legislation?"
As I've said before, it's baffling that people find the logic so hard. No-one, least of all Boris, wants any of these restrictions. And maybe they won't be necessary. If they are not, great. But why is it so hard to understand that if a complete relaxation of restrictions isn't possible for a while, vaccine certificates are better than outright closure (or social-distancing regulations which make the venue unviable)?
Sorry but no you've lost your mind over this. We're talking about the potential of this scheme being introduced domestically in this universe, not a parallel one where lockdown is needed.
No Parliament can bind its successor, heck no Parliament can bind itself. The government certainly could open up without passports and then if they ever did become "needed" come back to Parliament to get permission for them then. There's no need for it to be domestically required now.
I think it could be justifiable, Trident style, to invest in developing a scheme that you have no intention or desire of ever using but is prepared and available as an "in case of emergency break glass" situation so that in the future (possibly for a future non-Covid pandemic) if required Parliament could vote to authorise its usage as an alternative to lockdown. But we're not there. We're lifting lockdown, not going into it.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Another poster happy to wave through any number of restrictions on our liberty with a cheery smile and wave.
Would you have argued against the blackout in world war 2? It was compulsory, and universal, it was a severe restriction on our liberty AND it caused thousands of deaths
Serious question
I would have wanted it and the powers that the government had in those times to have been debated.
I assume that such a thing happened. Was there an emergency powers act for WWII?
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Another poster happy to wave through any number of restrictions on our liberty with a cheery smile and wave.
Would you have argued against the blackout in world war 2? It was compulsory, and universal, it was a severe restriction on our liberty AND it caused thousands of deaths
Serious question
I would have wanted it and the powers that the government had in those times have been debated.
I assume that such a thing happened. Was there an emergency powers act for WWII?
Yes, the inventively named Emergency Powers Act 1939.
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Another poster happy to wave through any number of restrictions on our liberty with a cheery smile and wave.
Would you have argued against the blackout in world war 2? It was compulsory, and universal, it was a severe restriction on our liberty AND it caused thousands of deaths
Serious question
I would have wanted it and the powers that the government had in those times have been debated.
I assume that such a thing happened. Was there an emergency powers act for WWII?
Yes, the inventively named Emergency Powers Act 1939.
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
An interesting definition of shunned you have there.
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
You mean the one that unless stopped would be the preferred option for the third world as it's so much cheaper than other for profit options.
WRT to vaccine passports/cettificates it does appear to me that the actual debate we are having is an encouraging sign of progress against thevirus itself. We are, as I see it, in a strange time where we can see the end of the pandemic (at least here) but we are not there yet. It is like a shoreline on the other side of a narrow but fast flowing river - some want to cautiously build a bridge, others want to just jump in and swim over ASAP despite what appear to be some risks. If you step back and think about it it is a good place to be.
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
A solid take. I'm prepared to put my entire (and newly boosted with Hartlepool) superforecaster rep on the line for this one and state that there will be no vaccine passports for widespread domestic use in this country. Maybe one or two exceptions but certainly not for "normal" things like public transport, hospitality and retail. It will essentially be for international travel only.
Further thought. It is in the government's partisan political interest to keep reminding the public that other countries are way behind us on vaccines and hence that the pandemic may be over here but it continues to rage elsewhere. It would be easy (but imo wrong) to read into such talk that they plan to welsh on the roadmap for overseas holidays. They might, given the political angle, but on balance I think they'll stick to 17 May (with a traffic light system).
I agree with all of this Kinabalu (apart from the "superforecaster" bit) and I said this yesterday only to be summarily executed by Contrarian for being a Boris lickspittle!
A related anecdote: I.m just back from a stroll round our village and stopped to chat with a villager who is looking forward to his son and family visiting from the States. I reported last week that my ex-neighbor who moved to the Philippines is doing similar though will spend 10 days in Singapore first to avoid Red List quarantine in a UK hotel. So non-UK citizens are enjoying freedom to travel when we are forbidden to leave the country by law; UK citizens are actively being disadvantaged by this government.
I cannot comprehend why this is not creating more uproar. What is your view?
No 2nd EU Ref. Late Brexit Deal. Corbyn Never PM. Trump Toast. Johnson Landslide. Hartlepool. New Punditry, New Politics. Eye AM a superforecaster! Until I'm not of course.
But, yes, on the international travel. Interesting. I think it isn't causing uproar because most people are focused on the domestic side of things. Some are ready to roll again there, some are still antsy and anxious, but regardless of where they are on that spectrum, outwards foreign travel is equated to "holibobs" (rather than stuff like seeing family and friends), because few Brits (and even fewer Leavers) have that sort of strong international dimension to their lives, and as such it is in their minds a luxury item not a bread & butter matter of personal liberty entitlement. To the extent there is concern about UK citizens being disadvantaged cf foreigners, it is seen in calls for leveling down not leveling up, i.e. calls for the borders 'in' to be closed, rather than the borders 'out' opened.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Another poster happy to wave through any number of restrictions on our liberty with a cheery smile and wave.
I'm responding to your rather excessive reaction to the government strongly encouraging (not forcing) us to take a vaccine during this crisis. That's virtually nothing at all from the perspective of the longue durée of British and world history, and I don't see why I should have to pretend that it is.
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
Sorry but no you've lost your mind over this. We're talking about the potential of this scheme being introduced domestically in this universe, not a parallel one where lockdown is needed.
No Parliament can bind its successor, heck no Parliament can bind itself. The government certainly could open up without passports and then if they ever did become "needed" come back to Parliament to get permission for them then. There's no need for it to be domestically required now.
I think it could be justifiable, Trident style, to invest in developing a scheme that you have no intention or desire of ever using but is prepared and available as an "in case of emergency break glass" situation so that in the future (possibly for a future non-Covid pandemic) if required Parliament could vote to authorise its usage as an alternative to lockdown. But we're not there. We're lifting lockdown, not going into it.
Eh? What are you going on about? Where did I, or anyone else on this earth, say that the government should introduce vaccine passports without parliamentary consent? And what on earth is 'parallel universes' about? We're are talking about the very real universe we now find ourselves in. You might have noticed that we're in lockdown now; this is about how we get out of it, if things don't improve to the point where the hoped-for removal of all restrictions in June is possible.
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
WRT to vaccine passports/cettificates it does appear to me that the actual debate we are having is an encouraging sign of progress against thevirus itself. We are, as I see it, in a strange time where we can see the end of the pandemic (at least here) but we are not there yet. It is like a shoreline on the other side of a narrow but fast flowing river - some want to cautiously build a bridge, others want to just jump in and swim over ASAP despite what appear to be some risks. If you step back and think about it it is a good place to be.
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
A solid take. I'm prepared to put my entire (and newly boosted with Hartlepool) superforecaster rep on the line for this one and state that there will be no vaccine passports for widespread domestic use in this country. Maybe one or two exceptions but certainly not for "normal" things like public transport, hospitality and retail. It will essentially be for international travel only.
Further thought. It is in the government's partisan political interest to keep reminding the public that other countries are way behind us on vaccines and hence that the pandemic may be over here but it continues to rage elsewhere. It would be easy (but imo wrong) to read into such talk that they plan to welsh on the roadmap for overseas holidays. They might, given the political angle, but on balance I think they'll stick to 17 May (with a traffic light system).
I agree with all of this Kinabalu (apart from the "superforecaster" bit) and I said this yesterday only to be summarily executed by Contrarian for being a Boris lickspittle!
A related anecdote: I.m just back from a stroll round our village and stopped to chat with a villager who is looking forward to his son and family visiting from the States. I reported last week that my ex-neighbor who moved to the Philippines is doing similar though will spend 10 days in Singapore first to avoid Red List quarantine in a UK hotel. So non-UK citizens are enjoying freedom to travel when we are forbidden to leave the country by law; UK citizens are actively being disadvantaged by this government.
I cannot comprehend why this is not creating more uproar. What is your view?
No 2nd EU Ref. Late Brexit Deal. Corbyn Never PM. Trump Toast. Johnson Landslide. Hartlepool. New Punditry, New Politics. Eye AM a superforecaster! Until I'm not of course.
But, yes, on the international travel. Interesting. I think it isn't causing uproar because most people are focused on the domestic side of things. Some are ready to roll again there, some are still antsy and anxious, but regardless of where they are on that spectrum, outwards foreign travel is equated to "holibobs" (rather than stuff like seeing family and friends), because few Brits (and even fewer Leavers) have that sort of strong international dimension to their lives, and as such it is in their minds a luxury item not a bread & butter matter of personal liberty entitlement. To the extent there is concern about UK citizens being disadvantaged cf foreigners, it is seen in calls for leveling down not leveling up, i.e. calls for the borders 'in' to be closed, rather than the borders 'out' opened.
This inbound-tourism-still-working thing had some media this morning, so it may be noticed.
I find it interesting that in many ways our ordinary population was more internationally exposed a century ago.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Naked from the waist down? Jeez, times were tough.
I believe sporrans were permissible to save the dignity of Scottish regiments...
Actually the Highland regiments didn’t tend to wear sporrans in the field, more likely a khaki apron with a pocket. They weren’t called the Ladies from Hell for nothing.
I read in The Grocer that there is some Good News for exporters. The ludicrous position where a pack of Chocolate Digestives needed a vet certificate has been avoided. The UK and EU governments had a discussion about (I kid you not) the acceptable heat-treatment of dairy content in shelf-stable composite products. A way forward has been found, with alignment now reached between the UK's new divergent position and the EU's / UK's previous and in reality current postion.
Sadly no such agreement has yet been reached for other food categories that include dairy. Which makes it really hard and expensive to ship things like Cheesecake to Norniron and elsewhere once the new 3rd country regulations are activated next month. The UK has not diverged from EU standards. The UK insists it isn't going to diverge downwards on food safety. Yet the UK insists on the *right* to diverge and to be a 3rd country and thats why we remain fucked on basics like import / export.
Common sense is needed. Unfortunately wazzocks in places like Hartlepools expect Britain to defeat the forrin threat and if that means petrol bombings on the streets of Derry thats clearly the fault of some other forrin like the Irish.
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
I really want to defend you Scott, my being a remainer and all, but that is the most idiotic thing I have seen posted on here for a while. And there is some very strong competition.
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
Siri, show me the dictionary definition of 'bitterness'...
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Another poster happy to wave through any number of restrictions on our liberty with a cheery smile and wave.
I'm responding to your rather excessive reaction to the government strongly encouraging (not forcing) us to take a vaccine during this crisis. That's virtually nothing at all from the perspective of the longue durée of British and world history, and I don't see why I should have to pretend that it is.
I am not having an excessive reaction to anything. I am querying the government's proposed vaccine passport in terms of its implications for our liberty to lead a normal life. And in the broad sweep of history it is but a moment, although as we have discussed before, for, say, a 6yr old, it will be 20% of their lives come June that has been affected, which is pretty longue.
But looking at all the govt ministers and briefings today, the June 21st "no more restrictions" has been abandoned.
And as an aside, thanks to @Scott_P for his posting tweets. This imo is when it's most helpful - I always like people posting tweets btw. They are used to punctuate a PB debate with what's happening in the world of politics and politicians. eg Poster A says: "they won't be used in theatres" - @Scott_P posts a tweet saying: "Ministers considering their use in theatres".
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
I really want to defend you Scott, my being a remainer and all, but that is the most idiotic thing I have seen posted on here for a while. And there is some very strong competition.
Even allowing for Scott's bitterness to Boris he should be ashamed of such a remark and I agree, it is some time since I have read anything so idiotic on here
No, we can’t allow theatres, concert halls and nightclubs to reopen. They must remain CLOSED so that we can all be FREE
But they're imposing the social distancing rules making them uneconomic. It's a completelg circular argument. They're making it impossible for these venues to operate normally and then saying that the vaccine passport is the way out of it, not just junking the social distancing rules. It's the government regulations on social distancing that need to be binned forever.
Sorry but no you've lost your mind over this. We're talking about the potential of this scheme being introduced domestically in this universe, not a parallel one where lockdown is needed.
No Parliament can bind its successor, heck no Parliament can bind itself. The government certainly could open up without passports and then if they ever did become "needed" come back to Parliament to get permission for them then. There's no need for it to be domestically required now.
I think it could be justifiable, Trident style, to invest in developing a scheme that you have no intention or desire of ever using but is prepared and available as an "in case of emergency break glass" situation so that in the future (possibly for a future non-Covid pandemic) if required Parliament could vote to authorise its usage as an alternative to lockdown. But we're not there. We're lifting lockdown, not going into it.
Eh? What are you going on about? Where did I, or anyone else on this earth, say that the government should introduce vaccine passports without parliamentary consent? And what on earth is 'parallel universes' about? We're are talking about the very real universe we now find ourselves in.
You are the one claiming that "proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. "
We're not in a position where we "couldn't otherwise do" things because we're not in another wave, because lockdown isn't happening, because Parliament isn't in a position to be saying we're going into lockdown.
My point is that Parliament should refuse to give permission to a compulsory "certification" scheme. If in the future there's another wave we should tackle that as and when we get there, not pre-empt it by introducing a compulsory ID scheme.
Sorry but no you've lost your mind over this. We're talking about the potential of this scheme being introduced domestically in this universe, not a parallel one where lockdown is needed.
No Parliament can bind its successor, heck no Parliament can bind itself. The government certainly could open up without passports and then if they ever did become "needed" come back to Parliament to get permission for them then. There's no need for it to be domestically required now.
I think it could be justifiable, Trident style, to invest in developing a scheme that you have no intention or desire of ever using but is prepared and available as an "in case of emergency break glass" situation so that in the future (possibly for a future non-Covid pandemic) if required Parliament could vote to authorise its usage as an alternative to lockdown. But we're not there. We're lifting lockdown, not going into it.
Eh? What are you going on about? Where did I, or anyone else on this earth, say that the government should introduce vaccine passports without parliamentary consent? And what on earth is 'parallel universes' about? We're are talking about the very real universe we now find ourselves in.
" Joshua Livestro is an independent communications adviser and a member of the Committee on European Integration of the Advisory Council on International Affairs of the Dutch Foreign Ministry."
I'd maybe drop the word independent. HIs argument is embarrassing.
The Politico seems confused.
This is April 2nd:
I have so far avoided the term Yellow Press for the up-the-EC's-arse media, but it's tempting and probably justifiable.
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
Siri, show me the dictionary definition of 'bitterness'...
Those PB’ers who prior to and without any analysis rushed to argue that there was no blood clot issue with the AZN and presented various spurious calculations to suggest it was simply a random normal incidence, come in a close second, though.
Having looked at the Hartlepool tables, there's only 2 real conclusions that you can take out.
1. Among BXP likely to vote (a tiny 13 unweighted), 60% to Con, 30% undecided, 0% to Lab means that it's likely that Con will harvest more of the BXP vote than Labour will.
2. SKS isn't very popular among any group.
Point 1 is the big one, BXP may have been the gateway drug, and while it's hard to draw conclusions from 13(!) likely to vote people, the sheer tilt towards the Cons indicates that those never Tories are at least sometimes Tories now. Good news for the incumbent Tees Valley Mayor.
Surely the answer to the vaxport issue is to enable them, but wherever they are used, give people the legal alternative of a covid test?
If you haven’t had the vax but you ALSO refuse a test, well then that’s tough, you can’t go anywhere
Or just chuck social distancing into the bin from June 21st and be done with it. The government is imposing these restrictions, not the venues.
and allow the NHS to be overwhelmed again, as SAGE are predicting and people like my wife never get the urgent medical care they need.
Just so you don't have to show someone you've been vaccinated.
If that happens it happens and we get over it. The NHS is there to provide healthcare for the country, the country is not there to not have civil liberties for the NHS.
Though why the hell the NHS would be overwhelmed once we have the vulnerable vaccinated (which we already do) is simply not explained.
Surely the answer to the vaxport issue is to enable them, but wherever they are used, give people the legal alternative of a covid test?
If you haven’t had the vax but you ALSO refuse a test, well then that’s tough, you can’t go anywhere
Or just chuck social distancing into the bin from June 21st and be done with it. The government is imposing these restrictions, not the venues.
and allow the NHS to be overwhelmed again, as SAGE are predicting and people like my wife never get the urgent medical care they need.
Just so you don't have to show someone you've been vaccinated.
Where's the scientific evidence for that? The paper yesterday was a joke, it literally assumed worse efficacy for two doses than what we've *actually observed* with a single dose.
The lockdown ultras are giving it one last push to hold on to their overwhelming power over the public and you're falling for it based on a completely circular argument.
Sorry but no you've lost your mind over this. We're talking about the potential of this scheme being introduced domestically in this universe, not a parallel one where lockdown is needed.
No Parliament can bind its successor, heck no Parliament can bind itself. The government certainly could open up without passports and then if they ever did become "needed" come back to Parliament to get permission for them then. There's no need for it to be domestically required now.
I think it could be justifiable, Trident style, to invest in developing a scheme that you have no intention or desire of ever using but is prepared and available as an "in case of emergency break glass" situation so that in the future (possibly for a future non-Covid pandemic) if required Parliament could vote to authorise its usage as an alternative to lockdown. But we're not there. We're lifting lockdown, not going into it.
Eh? What are you going on about? Where did I, or anyone else on this earth, say that the government should introduce vaccine passports without parliamentary consent? And what on earth is 'parallel universes' about? We're are talking about the very real universe we now find ourselves in.
No, we can’t allow theatres, concert halls and nightclubs to reopen. They must remain CLOSED so that we can all be FREE
But they're imposing the social distancing rules making them uneconomic. It's a completelg circular argument. They're making it impossible for these venues to operate normally and then saying that the vaccine passport is the way out of it, not just junking the social distancing rules. It's the government regulations on social distancing that need to be binned forever.
It depends what the bug does, dunnit?
If by June we are down to near zero covid (we will never hit zero) with no pressure on the NHS, cases minimal, a few deaths a day, then of course we must open up. Everything. I will burn my masks in a fearsome ritual.
From what I can tell there is a big debate WITHIN govt as to what will happen in the summer. Some SAGE pessimists are predicting a 4th wave nearly as bad as January. To me that seems highly unlikely because vaccines. But these people are boffins so we can’t completely dismiss them
The confusion on vaxports probably stems from this fierce internal HMG debate between the vaccine optimists and the 4th wave pessimists
I think the majority of people will bite the bullet and go along with liberty restrictions up until the point they get their second vaccination dose. After that second jab, they'll think "Thank fuck that's all over" and start to live life as normally as they can. Vaxports probably have a time limited place in foreign travel and maybe clubs or concerts, but for months not years. Anyone who voluntarily won't get vaccinated will have to take the risk of catching it and suffer the consequences. I'm not going to wear a mask or social distance at an event just because some tosser thinks Bill Gates wants to monitor his every thought via 5G injected into his arse. (I work with a full on Chemtrail v@xeeen denying Trump has the Plan conspiracy theorist loon. It's at the point where we avoid each other if we're on duty on the same day.) At some point, we're all going to have to accept that Covid is now a normal thing and deal with it. Sooner rather than later I hope.
What has become of this man? Sad. A reminder of his "gorgeous" pomp - ages ago now - when he wiped the floor with sundry US neoliberals and the Iraq War turncoat Chris Hitchens - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/may/18/usa.iraq
Having looked at the Hartlepool tables, there's only 2 real conclusions that you can take out.
1. Among BXP likely to vote (a tiny 13 unweighted), 60% to Con, 30% undecided, 0% to Lab means that it's likely that Con will harvest more of the BXP vote than Labour will.
2. SKS isn't very popular among any group.
Point 1 is the big one, BXP may have been the gateway drug, and while it's hard to draw conclusions from 13(!) likely to vote people, the sheer tilt towards the Cons indicates that those never Tories are at least sometimes Tories now. Good news for the incumbent Tees Valley Mayor.
I'm not sure we can conclude too much from a poll where the sample is so small, and especially in a by-election where polling is always difficult and turnout is very uncertain.
Sorry but no you've lost your mind over this. We're talking about the potential of this scheme being introduced domestically in this universe, not a parallel one where lockdown is needed.
No Parliament can bind its successor, heck no Parliament can bind itself. The government certainly could open up without passports and then if they ever did become "needed" come back to Parliament to get permission for them then. There's no need for it to be domestically required now.
I think it could be justifiable, Trident style, to invest in developing a scheme that you have no intention or desire of ever using but is prepared and available as an "in case of emergency break glass" situation so that in the future (possibly for a future non-Covid pandemic) if required Parliament could vote to authorise its usage as an alternative to lockdown. But we're not there. We're lifting lockdown, not going into it.
Eh? What are you going on about? Where did I, or anyone else on this earth, say that the government should introduce vaccine passports without parliamentary consent? And what on earth is 'parallel universes' about? We're are talking about the very real universe we now find ourselves in. You might have noticed that we're in lockdown now; this is about how we get out of it, if things don't improve to the point where the hoped-for removal of all restrictions in June is possible.
Shagger has stated that England comes out of restrictions on 21st June. Yes, you and I know this was to generate the positive headlines he requires as much as oxygen. So when people ask "why are they demanding details from the PM" its because the PM has provided details previously.
Of course it is absurd to ask for details as to how life will be a few months down the line. Yet that is what we were given...
What has become of this man? Sad. A reminder of his "gorgeous" pomp - ages ago now - when he wiped the floor with sundry US neoliberals and the Iraq War turncoat Chris Hitchens - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/may/18/usa.iraq
I was out leafleting for Maurice Golden again this weekend. Nice chap.
No, we can’t allow theatres, concert halls and nightclubs to reopen. They must remain CLOSED so that we can all be FREE
But they're imposing the social distancing rules making them uneconomic. It's a completelg circular argument. They're making it impossible for these venues to operate normally and then saying that the vaccine passport is the way out of it, not just junking the social distancing rules. It's the government regulations on social distancing that need to be binned forever.
It depends what the bug does, dunnit?
If by June we are down to near zero covid (we will never hit zero) with no pressure on the NHS, cases minimal, a few deaths a day, then of course we must open up. Everything. I will burn my masks in a fearsome ritual.
From what I can tell there is a big debate WITHIN govt as to what will happen in the summer. Some SAGE pessimists are predicting a 4th wave nearly as bad as January. To me that seems highly unlikely because vaccines. But these people are boffins so we can’t completely dismiss them
The confusion on vaxports probably stems from this fierce internal HMG debate between the vaccine optimists and the 4th wave pessimists
Those sage pessimists put efficacy of 32% for a single dose and 62% for two doses into their model. We know actual observed efficacy of a single dose of either Pfizer or AZ is 80% and for two doses it's over 99% for AZ and over 99.9% for Pfizer on the cumulative hospitalisations measure.
Who is the fourth wave going to present itself in?
I think the majority of people will bite the bullet and go along with liberty restrictions up until the point they get their second vaccination dose. After that second jab, they'll think "Thank fuck that's all over" and start to live life as normally as they can. Vaxports probably have a time limited place in foreign travel and maybe clubs or concerts, but for months not years. Anyone who voluntarily won't get vaccinated will have to take the risk of catching it and suffer the consequences. I'm not going to wear a mask or social distance at an event just because some tosser thinks Bill Gates wants to monitor his every thought via 5G injected into his arse. (I work with a full on Chemtrail v@xeeen denying Trump has the Plan conspiracy theorist loon. It's at the point where we avoid each other if we're on duty on the same day.) At some point, we're all going to have to accept that Covid is now a normal thing and deal with it. Sooner rather than later I hope.
Good post.
I would also add that it would be interesting to see what the govt has done about NHS recruiting. Do we have more/fewer docs & nurses than we did in March 2020?
If they really didn't want the NHS to be overwhelmed then surely they should have and did divert some of Rishi's billions to the NHS itself and not just the Nightingales - to training and recruitment (which I appreciate take time). Did they?
Shagger has stated that England comes out of restrictions on 21st June. Yes, you and I know this was to generate the positive headlines he requires as much as oxygen. So when people ask "why are they demanding details from the PM" its because the PM has provided details previously.
Of course it is absurd to ask for details as to how life will be a few months down the line. Yet that is what we were given...
You're being a bit unfair. It was always hedged about with lots of provisos, and it's a reasonably cautious plan. Also it is very helpful to hospitality businesses to have at least provisional dates for the various stages.
Having looked at the Hartlepool tables, there's only 2 real conclusions that you can take out.
1. Among BXP likely to vote (a tiny 13 unweighted), 60% to Con, 30% undecided, 0% to Lab means that it's likely that Con will harvest more of the BXP vote than Labour will.
2. SKS isn't very popular among any group.
Point 1 is the big one, BXP may have been the gateway drug, and while it's hard to draw conclusions from 13(!) likely to vote people, the sheer tilt towards the Cons indicates that those never Tories are at least sometimes Tories now. Good news for the incumbent Tees Valley Mayor.
The Tees Valley Mayor didn't need the Good News of a Pools by-election - he was walking to a big victory anyway. A combination of a politician who actually over-delivers, a well-resourced and professional media operation, then Unite imposing a Labour candidate so bad that most activists refuse to work for her meant that he was going to win big regardless.
Which may or may not be good news for him. Due to Osborne, the Tees Valley Mayor gets paid an absurd £35k. Which has to mean that young Ben is being supported by the benevolence of others. Potential for financial scandal if they get that wrong - why not simply pay him a sensible salary like the other mayors?
No, we can’t allow theatres, concert halls and nightclubs to reopen. They must remain CLOSED so that we can all be FREE
But they're imposing the social distancing rules making them uneconomic. It's a completelg circular argument. They're making it impossible for these venues to operate normally and then saying that the vaccine passport is the way out of it, not just junking the social distancing rules. It's the government regulations on social distancing that need to be binned forever.
To be fair, the options are something like -
1) Open up soon, with vaccine passports and tests and social distancing 2) Open up soon, with social distancing 3) Open up soon and let the unvaccinated take their chances. Along with those that the vaccine didn't work for 4) Open up later with everyone vaccinated.
Option 3) will mean that you will get a mini-epidemic among the unvaccinated/those the vaccine didn't take for.
Option 2) means more economic damage Option 1) Is what you don't want Option 4) leaves people demanding "I've had my shots, let me out!", lots of economic damage
Having looked at the Hartlepool tables, there's only 2 real conclusions that you can take out.
1. Among BXP likely to vote (a tiny 13 unweighted), 60% to Con, 30% undecided, 0% to Lab means that it's likely that Con will harvest more of the BXP vote than Labour will.
2. SKS isn't very popular among any group.
Point 1 is the big one, BXP may have been the gateway drug, and while it's hard to draw conclusions from 13(!) likely to vote people, the sheer tilt towards the Cons indicates that those never Tories are at least sometimes Tories now. Good news for the incumbent Tees Valley Mayor.
I'm not sure we can conclude too much from a poll where the sample is so small, and especially in a by-election where polling is always difficult and turnout is very uncertain.
Agreed, but as ever you'd rather have such a poll in your favour than against.
Having looked at the Hartlepool tables, there's only 2 real conclusions that you can take out.
1. Among BXP likely to vote (a tiny 13 unweighted), 60% to Con, 30% undecided, 0% to Lab means that it's likely that Con will harvest more of the BXP vote than Labour will.
2. SKS isn't very popular among any group.
Point 1 is the big one, BXP may have been the gateway drug, and while it's hard to draw conclusions from 13(!) likely to vote people, the sheer tilt towards the Cons indicates that those never Tories are at least sometimes Tories now. Good news for the incumbent Tees Valley Mayor.
I would hesitate to predict anything about Hartlepool (a place I have never visited & I aim to keep it that way).
Constituency polls are unreliable and this one is not confidence-making.
But, I do think it is significant that the Welsh polling for the Senedd seems to be telling broadly the same story.
In Wales, it seems the large UKIP/BXP vote is not all going Tory, but enough of it is (~ 30-40 %) to cause Labour serious problems.
Having looked at the Hartlepool tables, there's only 2 real conclusions that you can take out.
1. Among BXP likely to vote (a tiny 13 unweighted), 60% to Con, 30% undecided, 0% to Lab means that it's likely that Con will harvest more of the BXP vote than Labour will.
2. SKS isn't very popular among any group.
Point 1 is the big one, BXP may have been the gateway drug, and while it's hard to draw conclusions from 13(!) likely to vote people, the sheer tilt towards the Cons indicates that those never Tories are at least sometimes Tories now. Good news for the incumbent Tees Valley Mayor.
I'm not sure we can conclude too much from a poll where the sample is so small, and especially in a by-election where polling is always difficult and turnout is very uncertain.
I think it is important to consider the recent trend in polling which indicates Boris gaining popularity as Starmer loses it and a poll lead of approx 8%
Also Wales polls are poor for Labour and of course Scotland looks like a disaster both both Labour and the Conservatives
This poll just adds to the narrative but I am not taking it as a certain conservative gain by anymeans
Just four more weeks and all will be revealed though it should be noted that this is likely the only result to be known overnight
Having looked at the Hartlepool tables, there's only 2 real conclusions that you can take out.
1. Among BXP likely to vote (a tiny 13 unweighted), 60% to Con, 30% undecided, 0% to Lab means that it's likely that Con will harvest more of the BXP vote than Labour will.
2. SKS isn't very popular among any group.
Point 1 is the big one, BXP may have been the gateway drug, and while it's hard to draw conclusions from 13(!) likely to vote people, the sheer tilt towards the Cons indicates that those never Tories are at least sometimes Tories now. Good news for the incumbent Tees Valley Mayor.
The Tees Valley Mayor didn't need the Good News of a Pools by-election - he was walking to a big victory anyway. A combination of a politician who actually over-delivers, a well-resourced and professional media operation, then Unite imposing a Labour candidate so bad that most activists refuse to work for her meant that he was going to win big regardless.
Which may or may not be good news for him. Due to Osborne, the Tees Valley Mayor gets paid an absurd £35k. Which has to mean that young Ben is being supported by the benevolence of others. Potential for financial scandal if they get that wrong - why not simply pay him a sensible salary like the other mayors?
That really does need to be fixed - although I'm not sure how you go about doing it.
It will be interesting to see which Parliamentary seat Ben goes for at the next election.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Indeed. Some generations are required by their country to charge machine-gun positions across a blasted moonscape in nothing more than a woollen tunic; others are strongly encouraged to take a safe and effective vaccine.
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
Another poster happy to wave through any number of restrictions on our liberty with a cheery smile and wave.
I'm responding to your rather excessive reaction to the government strongly encouraging (not forcing) us to take a vaccine during this crisis. That's virtually nothing at all from the perspective of the longue durée of British and world history, and I don't see why I should have to pretend that it is.
I am not having an excessive reaction to anything. I am querying the government's proposed vaccine passport in terms of its implications for our liberty to lead a normal life. And in the broad sweep of history it is but a moment, although as we have discussed before, for, say, a 6yr old, it will be 20% of their lives come June that has been affected, which is pretty longue.
But looking at all the govt ministers and briefings today, the June 21st "no more restrictions" has been abandoned.
And as an aside, thanks to @Scott_P for his posting tweets. This imo is when it's most helpful - I always like people posting tweets btw. They are used to punctuate a PB debate with what's happening in the world of politics and politicians. eg Poster A says: "they won't be used in theatres" - @Scott_P posts a tweet saying: "Ministers considering their use in theatres".
Let's see what actually comes into effect before making our final evaluations. One of the reasons why I think people are overreacting is precisely because this is a populist government, and populism is actually quite good at self-correcting. I'll be astonished if a scheme is introduced and / or kept for long if it seriously pisses people off, because it's not in the government's interest to do so.
Anyway, I gave you a like because I enjoyed 'pretty longue' so much.
Calling Johnson "Boris" of course is also ridiculous. He is Johnson, just as Theresa was May, Tony was Blair etc
He's Boris, its his name.
Just like in Blair's day he was often called Tony, in Cameron's day he was often called Dave, Sturgeon is often called Nicola. Trump was often called Donald, even Biden has sometimes been called Jo.
Starmer is sometimes called Keith.
It happens. We don't live in a prim and proper 19th century society when people can only use surnames.
Comments
But as is clear the government was already planning Covid ID cards then so was lying. As it does every time any of its Ministers open their mouths. So safe to assume they are lying now when they say it will only be for a year or whatever today's lie is.
But the suggestion was rather that those countries with access to various vaccine options use different ones for different cohorts. In view of the vaccine hesitancy problem in many places, that's not a bad idea.
Some countries (e.g. Italy) and some US states (Washington) do not permit unvaccinated children (MMR, polio, etc) to attend school (unless they have a valid medical exemption certificate). It has certainly been threatened before in the UK (e.g., at the height of the Swansea measles outbreak). Normally, the threat is enough.
For any individual, the safest thing is not to get vaccinated, but to allow everyone else to bear the tiny, tiny, tiny risk. That is why the anti-vax movement is so dangerous. There is a kernel of hard, selfish truth in their delusions.
As I've said before, it's baffling that people find the logic so hard. No-one, least of all Boris, wants any of these restrictions. And maybe they won't be necessary. If they are not, great. But why is it so hard to understand that if a complete relaxation of restrictions isn't possible for a while, vaccine certificates are better than outright closure (or social-distancing regulations which make the venue unviable)?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/starmer-is-losing-labours-working-class-voters-zw3l7prw2
I rather thank my lucky stars that I was born in the latter generation.
https://twitter.com/jimmfelton/status/1379370621663076354?s=21
I likewise hate masks, sanitizers, social distancing, shuttered shops, ruined businesses, vaccine wars, no live music, no theatres or galleries or pubs or restaurants, stupid fucking walks in freezing parks, staring at ducks all the time, and the sound of parakeets screeching over eerily silent cities.
If the government has ideas for ways to bring this epochal nightmare to an early end, I am eager to listen
As a result there are only two use good use-cases for vaccine passports - the month where we'll be teetering on the edge of natural R being below 1 this spring (for which the system will not be ready in time). Secondly, a situation where UK R is marginally above 1, which with these vaccines and a 90%+ takeup rate, can only occur if the vaccines are no longer effective, at which point a vaccine passport is pointless, because a vaccine would be no guarantee of anything.
We have over half the country vaccinated however. And more every day. So yes, and as @YBarddCwsc has pointed out, individually it is rational not to take that risk and thereby have a free rider on everyone else who has been vaccinated.
But the compulsion, which "might be needed" to live a normal life is something we should debate the shit out of.
The vaccine isn't compulsory and at the moment there is no requirement to have it.
Happy to help.
https://twitter.com/politicoeurope/status/1379371111218098179?s=21
Tables are up for Survation, please over analyse, this is my crack!
Perhaps that should have been in the byline.
Each of its steps in eroding our personal freedoms (yes even if for the greater good) must be examined and queried. Because you know how governments can be.
At present we have all forgotten that all these measures were to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. At XX% vaccinated we/the NHS would be in a much better position.
Your last line says it all - you are in such a cowed, scared place (no offence, many people are) that you are willing to accept any measure on a nod.
Serious question
Joshua Livestro is an independent communications adviser and a member of the Committee on European Integration of the Advisory Council on International Affairs of the Dutch Foreign Ministry."
I'd maybe drop the word independent. HIs argument is embarrassing.
Your second point is wrong, though. Of course if vaccines become ineffective, there's no point asking for proof of vaccination. But if they become less, but not too much less, effective (say 75%), then there very much is. (R reduced by a factor of three, which is well worth having for mass events, but vaccinated individuals not so safe that we can simply let the unvaccinated risk infection if they want to).
So we just need to wait and see, but in the meantime the government (like other governments and the EU) is right to plan for the possibility that vaccine passports might be needed.
No Parliament can bind its successor, heck no Parliament can bind itself. The government certainly could open up without passports and then if they ever did become "needed" come back to Parliament to get permission for them then. There's no need for it to be domestically required now.
I think it could be justifiable, Trident style, to invest in developing a scheme that you have no intention or desire of ever using but is prepared and available as an "in case of emergency break glass" situation so that in the future (possibly for a future non-Covid pandemic) if required Parliament could vote to authorise its usage as an alternative to lockdown. But we're not there. We're lifting lockdown, not going into it.
I assume that such a thing happened. Was there an emergency powers act for WWII?
So 34% of BXP voters are not certain to vote, there's your stay at home vote then
While BoZo basks in the success of the British Vaccine, there must be some element of risk in being so closely associated with the only vaccine that is being shunned by the rest of the World
But, yes, on the international travel. Interesting. I think it isn't causing uproar because most people are focused on the domestic side of things. Some are ready to roll again there, some are still antsy and anxious, but regardless of where they are on that spectrum, outwards foreign travel is equated to "holibobs" (rather than stuff like seeing family and friends), because few Brits (and even fewer Leavers) have that sort of strong international dimension to their lives, and as such it is in their minds a luxury item not a bread & butter matter of personal liberty entitlement. To the extent there is concern about UK citizens being disadvantaged cf foreigners, it is seen in calls for leveling down not leveling up, i.e. calls for the borders 'in' to be closed, rather than the borders 'out' opened.
Dan Hodges had this right yesterday:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1379112752090906632
I find it interesting that in many ways our ordinary population was more internationally exposed a century ago.
Sadly no such agreement has yet been reached for other food categories that include dairy. Which makes it really hard and expensive to ship things like Cheesecake to Norniron and elsewhere once the new 3rd country regulations are activated next month. The UK has not diverged from EU standards. The UK insists it isn't going to diverge downwards on food safety. Yet the UK insists on the *right* to diverge and to be a 3rd country and thats why we remain fucked on basics like import / export.
Common sense is needed. Unfortunately wazzocks in places like Hartlepools expect Britain to defeat the forrin threat and if that means petrol bombings on the streets of Derry thats clearly the fault of some other forrin like the Irish.
But looking at all the govt ministers and briefings today, the June 21st "no more restrictions" has been abandoned.
And as an aside, thanks to @Scott_P for his posting tweets. This imo is when it's most helpful - I always like people posting tweets btw. They are used to punctuate a PB debate with what's happening in the world of politics and politicians. eg Poster A says: "they won't be used in theatres" - @Scott_P posts a tweet saying: "Ministers considering their use in theatres".
If you haven’t had the vax but you ALSO refuse a test, well then that’s tough, you can’t go anywhere
On June 21st all restrictions end, right?
We're not in a position where we "couldn't otherwise do" things because we're not in another wave, because lockdown isn't happening, because Parliament isn't in a position to be saying we're going into lockdown.
My point is that Parliament should refuse to give permission to a compulsory "certification" scheme. If in the future there's another wave we should tackle that as and when we get there, not pre-empt it by introducing a compulsory ID scheme.
Journalists demand this so that -- a few weeks later -- they can print their 'Fury at Another U-Turn' article.
This is April 2nd:
I have so far avoided the term Yellow Press for the up-the-EC's-arse media, but it's tempting and probably justifiable.
Just so you don't have to show someone you've been vaccinated.
I would remind everyone that the most idiotic thing posted here, end repeated many times over, is the phrase "BoZo is a liberal"...
1. Among BXP likely to vote (a tiny 13 unweighted), 60% to Con, 30% undecided, 0% to Lab means that it's likely that Con will harvest more of the BXP vote than Labour will.
2. SKS isn't very popular among any group.
Point 1 is the big one, BXP may have been the gateway drug, and while it's hard to draw conclusions from 13(!) likely to vote people, the sheer tilt towards the Cons indicates that those never Tories are at least sometimes Tories now. Good news for the incumbent Tees Valley Mayor.
Though why the hell the NHS would be overwhelmed once we have the vulnerable vaccinated (which we already do) is simply not explained.
The lockdown ultras are giving it one last push to hold on to their overwhelming power over the public and you're falling for it based on a completely circular argument.
Boris on the other hand is a liberal.
If by June we are down to near zero covid (we will never hit zero) with no pressure on the NHS, cases minimal, a few deaths a day, then of course we must open up. Everything. I will burn my masks in a fearsome ritual.
From what I can tell there is a big debate WITHIN govt as to what will happen in the summer. Some SAGE pessimists are predicting a 4th wave nearly as bad as January. To me that seems highly unlikely because vaccines. But these people are boffins so we can’t completely dismiss them
The confusion on vaxports probably stems from this fierce internal HMG debate between the vaccine optimists and the 4th wave pessimists
Anyone who voluntarily won't get vaccinated will have to take the risk of catching it and suffer the consequences. I'm not going to wear a mask or social distance at an event just because some tosser thinks Bill Gates wants to monitor his every thought via 5G injected into his arse. (I work with a full on Chemtrail v@xeeen denying Trump has the Plan conspiracy theorist loon. It's at the point where we avoid each other if we're on duty on the same day.)
At some point, we're all going to have to accept that Covid is now a normal thing and deal with it. Sooner rather than later I hope.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/may/18/usa.iraq
Your post today has been rightly criticised for its idiotic content and you show no sign of retraction
Of course it is absurd to ask for details as to how life will be a few months down the line. Yet that is what we were given...
Who is the fourth wave going to present itself in?
I would also add that it would be interesting to see what the govt has done about NHS recruiting. Do we have more/fewer docs & nurses than we did in March 2020?
If they really didn't want the NHS to be overwhelmed then surely they should have and did divert some of Rishi's billions to the NHS itself and not just the Nightingales - to training and recruitment (which I appreciate take time). Did they?
Which may or may not be good news for him. Due to Osborne, the Tees Valley Mayor gets paid an absurd £35k. Which has to mean that young Ben is being supported by the benevolence of others. Potential for financial scandal if they get that wrong - why not simply pay him a sensible salary like the other mayors?
https://www.politico.eu/article/valneva-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-immune-response-in-phase-1-2-trial/
1) Open up soon, with vaccine passports and tests and social distancing
2) Open up soon, with social distancing
3) Open up soon and let the unvaccinated take their chances. Along with those that the vaccine didn't work for
4) Open up later with everyone vaccinated.
Option 3) will mean that you will get a mini-epidemic among the unvaccinated/those the vaccine didn't take for.
Option 2) means more economic damage
Option 1) Is what you don't want
Option 4) leaves people demanding "I've had my shots, let me out!", lots of economic damage
We're supposed to uphold slightly more professional standards here.
Constituency polls are unreliable and this one is not confidence-making.
But, I do think it is significant that the Welsh polling for the Senedd seems to be telling broadly the same story.
In Wales, it seems the large UKIP/BXP vote is not all going Tory, but enough of it is (~ 30-40 %) to cause Labour serious
problems.
Also Wales polls are poor for Labour and of course Scotland looks like a disaster both both Labour and the Conservatives
This poll just adds to the narrative but I am not taking it as a certain conservative gain by anymeans
Just four more weeks and all will be revealed though it should be noted that this is likely the only result to be known overnight
It will be interesting to see which Parliamentary seat Ben goes for at the next election.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/06/water-in-uks-first-official-bathing-river-to-be-designated-poor-quality
Anyway, I gave you a like because I enjoyed 'pretty longue' so much.
Just like in Blair's day he was often called Tony, in Cameron's day he was often called Dave, Sturgeon is often called Nicola. Trump was often called Donald, even Biden has sometimes been called Jo.
Starmer is sometimes called Keith.
It happens. We don't live in a prim and proper 19th century society when people can only use surnames.