I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
I just want to add my best wishes to Cyclefree’s daughter. I’m currently spending a week in Hope Cove, and planning to spend the afternoon in Dartmouth, so very much looking forward to reopening.
Hope cove is stunning - we used to holiday there before kids meant that reasonable prices were no longer available!
Yes it is beautiful, but so is the entire coast between Dartmouth and Plymouth
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Actions need to have consequences. I may have the right to be a fool, but am I entitled to expect the government to shield me from the consequences of my folly?
Yes. If you are a fool by trying to scale the Shard and fall off low enough down to hurt but not kill yourself you will be taken to hospital.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Look again.... same old same old
I was joking. It reminds me of Konstantin Kisin routine about being called a Nazi, despite being a Jew and all the others who similarly been tarred nonsensically.
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Bollocks to that. Our lives and those of our kids have been turned upside down in the most extraordinary breach of fundamental freedoms it’s possible to conceive. Sending an armed vaccination squad round to your house would pale by comparison, and it would be doing you a favour as well as the rest of us.
That is precisely my point.
The govt by luck or design has got you into a position where I'm sure you are not even joking.
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
It's not the ventilators, it's needing all of the special staffing rotations and additional resources of having COVID patients with staff that are no longer able to work on the normal rotation.
We are talking about fundamental freedoms here and everyone must make the choice, but those choices cannot be without consequences. What you're asking for is a consequence free lifestyle, where is the personal responsibility? These are people who think taking the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, let's let them deal with the consequences of that decision, not burden the whole of society with their stupidity.
Yes but society doesn't work like that or shouldn't.
There are a zillion activities which are grossly irresponsible and many which are illegal.
We don't go around denying the perpetrators health care. No matter how complicated it might be.
And I thought that people don't get to ventilators now if they have covid?
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Honestly, who gives a fuck what Corbo does or doesn't do but the really interesting question is where the fuck do you get something like that at short notice?
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Actions need to have consequences. I may have the right to be a fool, but am I entitled to expect the government to shield me from the consequences of my folly?
Yes. If you are a fool by trying to scale the Shard and fall off low enough down to hurt but not kill yourself you will be taken to hospital.
Are we really having this conversation?
The difference is that an anti-vaxxer puts everyone else in the hospital at risk when they enter and it requires a disproportionate amount of resources to treat them.
The NHS is resource limited, it has got a waiting list of 6m people for various treatments last time it was counted. We can't create NHS resources from nothing, there is a 2-5 year lead time to do so.
The choice these people have made is that getting the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, that's up to them. If they then get COVID they need to live with that decision not pass the burden onto the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing. It's the same principle as the government not protecting dividend income for directors who used them to avoid paying NI. They made the decision, these are the consequences.
@TOPPING - I think the problem is that this whole issue is symptomatic of society today. No one in politics or the media is brave enough to say what is being said on here - "we are not going to lockdown to protect individuals."
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Actions need to have consequences. I may have the right to be a fool, but am I entitled to expect the government to shield me from the consequences of my folly?
Yes. If you are a fool by trying to scale the Shard and fall off low enough down to hurt but not kill yourself you will be taken to hospital.
Are we really having this conversation?
The difference is that an anti-vaxxer puts everyone else in the hospital at risk when they enter and it requires a disproportionate amount of resources to treat them.
The NHS is resource limited, it has got a waiting list of 6m people for various treatments last time it was counted. We can't create NHS resources from nothing, there is a 2-5 year lead time to do so.
The choice these people have made is that getting the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, that's up to them. If they then get COVID they need to live with that decision not pass the burden onto the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing. It's the same principle as the government not protecting dividend income for directors who used them to avoid paying NI. They made the decision, these are the consequences.
Not quite everyone. Most people will have been vaccinated. Of course a greater risk and therefore greater protection resources but, in order to preserve essential freedoms, this I believe is justified.
@TOPPING - I think the problem is that this whole issue is symptomatic of society today. No one in politics or the media is brave enough to say what is being said on here - "we are not going to lockdown to protect individuals."
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Pretty gross, but also disappointing, as Scott's post had me expecting an inflatable Corbyn.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
It's not the ventilators, it's needing all of the special staffing rotations and additional resources of having COVID patients with staff that are no longer able to work on the normal rotation.
We are talking about fundamental freedoms here and everyone must make the choice, but those choices cannot be without consequences. What you're asking for is a consequence free lifestyle, where is the personal responsibility? These are people who think taking the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, let's let them deal with the consequences of that decision, not burden the whole of society with their stupidity.
Yes but society doesn't work like that or shouldn't.
There are a zillion activities which are grossly irresponsible and many which are illegal.
We don't go around denying the perpetrators health care. No matter how complicated it might be.
And I thought that people don't get to ventilators now if they have covid?
We have 129 people in mechanical ventilation beds in the UK. It's a lower proportion than earlier in the pandemic, but some patients will end up there.
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Actions need to have consequences. I may have the right to be a fool, but am I entitled to expect the government to shield me from the consequences of my folly?
Yes. If you are a fool by trying to scale the Shard and fall off low enough down to hurt but not kill yourself you will be taken to hospital.
Are we really having this conversation?
The difference is that an anti-vaxxer puts everyone else in the hospital at risk when they enter and it requires a disproportionate amount of resources to treat them.
The NHS is resource limited, it has got a waiting list of 6m people for various treatments last time it was counted. We can't create NHS resources from nothing, there is a 2-5 year lead time to do so.
The choice these people have made is that getting the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, that's up to them. If they then get COVID they need to live with that decision not pass the burden onto the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing. It's the same principle as the government not protecting dividend income for directors who used them to avoid paying NI. They made the decision, these are the consequences.
Which is fine except that those people who haven't been vaccinated against COVID may pass it to those people who cannot be vaccinated for COVID and so are reliant on Herd Immunity.
As I've pointed out before I don't think there are any great answers here but there does need to be more effort made in ensuring those who haven't organised being vaccinated are encouraged to do so. And the time is coming when that may need to be done using a stick rather than a carrot.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
I have seen this trope repeatedly in the past, featuring Assad of all people..
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
Or Dan Hodges saw the nose and jumped to the racist conclusion he must be Jewish. ETA the Arab headdress should have been a clue.
@TOPPING - I think the problem is that this whole issue is symptomatic of society today. No one in politics or the media is brave enough to say what is being said on here - "we are not going to lockdown to protect individuals."
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
You want the government to "say it as it is" and not be worried about "lots of ethnic minorities dying in the Autumn from Covid"?
@TOPPING - I think the problem is that this whole issue is symptomatic of society today. No one in politics or the media is brave enough to say what is being said on here - "we are not going to lockdown to protect individuals."
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
You want the government to "say it as it is" and not be worried about "lots of anti-vaxxers ethnic minorities dying in the Autumn from Covid"?
That's what I want them to say. Whether it's Billy Bob in Birmingham, AL or Muhammad in Birmingham, England, I don't care.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
So the anti-Semites are now turning on Arab leaders, for trying hard to work out a lasting peace in the region?
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
So the anti-Semites are now turning on Arab leaders, for trying hard to work out a lasting peace in the region?
Yeap....seems a bit like the far left lot in US calling everybody to the right of them a Nazi...Ben Shirapo...Nazi...must be the most devote Jewish Nazi ever.
@TOPPING - I think the problem is that this whole issue is symptomatic of society today. No one in politics or the media is brave enough to say what is being said on here - "we are not going to lockdown to protect individuals."
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
The news yesterday said something like 18 Covid patients in Bolton, all but one of which had refused the offer of a vaccine.
It's pretty obvious what the public will think of that (should have bleeding well got vaccinated), and I also think it will reduce the numbers of those who refuse the vaccine a bit more, at the margins.
At the moment there are still loads of people desperate to have the vaccine, but once they're all dosed the government can put extra effort into cajoling and persuading the reluctant to join in. Some people may have to learn the hard way, by seeing friends and family suffer, but I don't think it will cause major issues at a society-wide level.
@TOPPING - I think the problem is that this whole issue is symptomatic of society today. No one in politics or the media is brave enough to say what is being said on here - "we are not going to lockdown to protect individuals."
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
You want the government to "say it as it is" and not be worried about "lots of anti-vaxxers ethnic minorities dying in the Autumn from Covid"?
That's what I want them to say. Whether it's Billy Bob in Birmingham, AL or Muhammad in Birmingham, England, I don't care.
Funny thing is, the government has been not vaxxing schoolchildren until it has been tested on them. So is it *that* irrational for someone to ask if it has been tested on "people like me"? Same with pregnant women till recently iirc.
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Pretty gross, but also disappointing, as Scott's post had me expecting an inflatable Corbyn.
Me too! An inflatable Corbyn was at the demo and being antisemitic, that's how I read it.
On modelling, and mindful of the "Going to Twitter for details on science" cliche, a mathematician and risk modeller called James Ward ( https://twitter.com/JamesWard73 ) has been consistently good at reviewing the published models, picking up specifically where there are apparent disconnects or excessive pessimism, and extrapolating from them.
The risk of "going to Twitter" is somewhat mitigated by the fact that a whole bunch of very serious people (from the Covid Actuary's Group, through a bunch of verified immunologists and epidemiologists, to science correspondents) have followed and endorsed his work.
And helped by the fact that the published models have been iterating steadily towards his (considerably more positive) extrapolations and away from the more alarmist interpretations.
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
It's the only truly global sport wouldn't you agree? Mistakes will be made.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
So the anti-Semites are now turning on Arab leaders, for trying hard to work out a lasting peace in the region?
The hardliners on both sides don't want peace, they want victory.
And thanks to the missile exchanges, people – in both Israel and Gaza – support the hardliners. In the second world war, we called it the Blitz Spirit. I'm not sure what the Hebrew or Arabic translation is but it is natural that when people are bombed, they want their side to hit back.
@TOPPING - I think the problem is that this whole issue is symptomatic of society today. No one in politics or the media is brave enough to say what is being said on here - "we are not going to lockdown to protect individuals."
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
You want the government to "say it as it is" and not be worried about "lots of anti-vaxxers ethnic minorities dying in the Autumn from Covid"?
That's what I want them to say. Whether it's Billy Bob in Birmingham, AL or Muhammad in Birmingham, England, I don't care.
Ok. But why do you want them to say that? Why aren't you satisfied with the end of restrictions on June 21 and no going back?
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
It's the only truly global sport wouldn't you agree? Mistakes will be made.
And on that note can I remind fellow PBers that it's the Championship semi-finals first legs today.
@TOPPING - I think the problem is that this whole issue is symptomatic of society today. No one in politics or the media is brave enough to say what is being said on here - "we are not going to lockdown to protect individuals."
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
You want the government to "say it as it is" and not be worried about "lots of anti-vaxxers ethnic minorities dying in the Autumn from Covid"?
That's what I want them to say. Whether it's Billy Bob in Birmingham, AL or Muhammad in Birmingham, England, I don't care.
Funny thing is, the government has been not vaxxing schoolchildren until it has been tested on them. So is it *that* irrational for someone to ask if it has been tested on "people like me"? Same with pregnant women till recently iirc.
Last time I looked, death from COVID among children was incredibly rare.
And, I'll be honest, I've been happily waiting my turn for the COVID jab, simply because it is being tested on people like me who are ahead of me in the queue!
As for pregnant women et al, well, I feel for them and I think we should hammer this point to the anti-vaxxers, but I'm not sure we should stay locked down just for them.
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
Or Dan Hodges saw the nose and jumped to the racist conclusion he must be Jewish. ETA the Arab headdress should have been a clue.
Hodges was right. They are portraying the Sheikh as a Jewish devil.
@TOPPING - I think the problem is that this whole issue is symptomatic of society today. No one in politics or the media is brave enough to say what is being said on here - "we are not going to lockdown to protect individuals."
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
You want the government to "say it as it is" and not be worried about "lots of anti-vaxxers ethnic minorities dying in the Autumn from Covid"?
That's what I want them to say. Whether it's Billy Bob in Birmingham, AL or Muhammad in Birmingham, England, I don't care.
Ok. But why do you want them to say that? Why aren't you satisfied with the end of restrictions on June 21 and no going back?
Okay, they can show a bit more tact than I would (I'm not a politician), but the point they need to make clear is, it's all about protecting the NHS, not individuals. And Starmer should make it clear that he agrees with that.
@TOPPING - I think the problem is that this whole issue is symptomatic of society today. No one in politics or the media is brave enough to say what is being said on here - "we are not going to lockdown to protect individuals."
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
You want the government to "say it as it is" and not be worried about "lots of anti-vaxxers ethnic minorities dying in the Autumn from Covid"?
That's what I want them to say. Whether it's Billy Bob in Birmingham, AL or Muhammad in Birmingham, England, I don't care.
Funny thing is, the government has been not vaxxing schoolchildren until it has been tested on them. So is it *that* irrational for someone to ask if it has been tested on "people like me"? Same with pregnant women till recently iirc.
Last time I looked, death from COVID among children was incredibly rare.
And, I'll be honest, I've been happily waiting my turn for the COVID jab, simply because it is being tested on people like me who are ahead of me in the queue!
As for pregnant women et al, well, I feel for them and I think we should hammer this point to the anti-vaxxers, but I'm not sure we should stay locked down just for them.
The point is that often Covid vaccine hesitancy (that seems to be the pc term) is not just stupid people being stupid, it can also be rational, especially if you start from a misinformed position.
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Actions need to have consequences. I may have the right to be a fool, but am I entitled to expect the government to shield me from the consequences of my folly?
Yes. If you are a fool by trying to scale the Shard and fall off low enough down to hurt but not kill yourself you will be taken to hospital.
Are we really having this conversation?
The difference is that an anti-vaxxer puts everyone else in the hospital at risk when they enter and it requires a disproportionate amount of resources to treat them.
The NHS is resource limited, it has got a waiting list of 6m people for various treatments last time it was counted. We can't create NHS resources from nothing, there is a 2-5 year lead time to do so.
The choice these people have made is that getting the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, that's up to them. If they then get COVID they need to live with that decision not pass the burden onto the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing. It's the same principle as the government not protecting dividend income for directors who used them to avoid paying NI. They made the decision, these are the consequences.
Your reasoning is leading us down a very, very dangerous path.
There are people who cannot control their eating to the extent they are so morbidly obese that they need knee cartilage operations in their 20s.
To quote you, fine that's up to them. They need to live with that decision and not pass the burden on the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing.
If you want to freeze me out of the health service, fine, I will go private (which I half do anyway).
But I reserve the right to take my tax revenues with me.
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
Well yes, but that's all true in cricket and rugby too, and yet cricket and rugby manage to make use of technology to reduce the number of controversial decisions. Uniquely, football appears to have used technology to increase the number of controversial decisions.
I wonder what time they’ll schedule it for? Even with the Saudi money, they’ll still need a big US PPV audience - but there’s 11 hours’ time difference between Vegas and Saudi.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
Do we cut any slack on antisemitism for Palestinians?
By which I mean, is anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by those at the sharp end of Israeli oppression as reprehensible as that expressed by people with no direct involvement?
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
So the anti-Semites are now turning on Arab leaders, for trying hard to work out a lasting peace in the region?
The hardliners on both sides don't want peace, they want victory.
And thanks to the missile exchanges, people – in both Israel and Gaza – support the hardliners. In the second world war, we called it the Blitz Spirit. I'm not sure what the Hebrew or Arabic translation is but it is natural that when people are bombed, they want their side to hit back.
Which suits the hardliners. Job done.
There is surely a case that support for Hamas by British people is a dog whistle for anti-semitism.
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
Well yes, but that's all true in cricket and rugby too, and yet cricket and rugby manage to make use of technology to reduce the number of controversial decisions. Uniquely, football appears to have used technology to increase the number of controversial decisions.
Rugby Union is appalling at using the video ref.
It has almost certainly increased the amount of controversial and partial decisions.
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Actions need to have consequences. I may have the right to be a fool, but am I entitled to expect the government to shield me from the consequences of my folly?
Yes. If you are a fool by trying to scale the Shard and fall off low enough down to hurt but not kill yourself you will be taken to hospital.
Are we really having this conversation?
The difference is that an anti-vaxxer puts everyone else in the hospital at risk when they enter and it requires a disproportionate amount of resources to treat them.
The NHS is resource limited, it has got a waiting list of 6m people for various treatments last time it was counted. We can't create NHS resources from nothing, there is a 2-5 year lead time to do so.
The choice these people have made is that getting the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, that's up to them. If they then get COVID they need to live with that decision not pass the burden onto the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing. It's the same principle as the government not protecting dividend income for directors who used them to avoid paying NI. They made the decision, these are the consequences.
Your reasoning is leading us down a very, very dangerous path.
There are people who cannot control their eating to the extent they are so morbidly obese that they need knee cartilage operations in their 20s.
To quote you, fine that's up to them. They need to live with that decision and not pass the burden on the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing.
If you want to freeze me out of the health service, fine, I will go private (which I half do anyway).
But I reserve the right to take my tax revenues with me.
You’re conflating two things here. The moral hazard engendered by the NHS model, where premia are not adjusted for risk behaviour but income.
Personally I think this is a huge problem and more should be done to address it than a few pence on a litre of Fanta.
But that is a linked but separate issue to the negative externalities caused by vaccine refusal.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Honestly, who gives a fuck what Corbo does or doesn't do but the really interesting question is where the fuck do you get something like that at short notice?
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
Pro-tip:
You can get L & B Blue for under a tenner
Under a tenner! Where? I'm guessing "underneath the arches"?
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
Well yes, but that's all true in cricket and rugby too, and yet cricket and rugby manage to make use of technology to reduce the number of controversial decisions. Uniquely, football appears to have used technology to increase the number of controversial decisions.
Oh, come on. The Pubs are open! Let's not go for that old chestnut that is VAR to debate about. I stated on PB the other day that my opinion is that they shouldn't have changed the handball rule at the same time.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
Do we cut any slack on antisemitism for Palestinians?
By which I mean, is anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by those at the sharp end of Israeli oppression as reprehensible as that expressed by people with no direct involvement?
That protest was in London, right? Not exactly the sharp end of Israeli oppression.
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
Well yes, but that's all true in cricket and rugby too, and yet cricket and rugby manage to make use of technology to reduce the number of controversial decisions. Uniquely, football appears to have used technology to increase the number of controversial decisions.
Rugby Union is appalling at using the video ref.
It has almost certainly increased the amount of controversial and partial decisions.
I thinkt he main effect in cricket is to make LBW much more perilous for the batsman than previously. Getting your pad out a long way in front isn't a sure fire way to avoid it any more.
I'd be interested to see some polling on people's attitude towards those refusing vaccinations.
I'm sure its harsh. But talk of refusing basic services as some do makes me uncomfortable. You cannot protect everyone from themselves, but piling additional punishment can be difficult.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
So the anti-Semites are now turning on Arab leaders, for trying hard to work out a lasting peace in the region?
The hardliners on both sides don't want peace, they want victory.
And thanks to the missile exchanges, people – in both Israel and Gaza – support the hardliners. In the second world war, we called it the Blitz Spirit. I'm not sure what the Hebrew or Arabic translation is but it is natural that when people are bombed, they want their side to hit back.
Which suits the hardliners. Job done.
And even though it's obvious it seems impossible to prevent that intentional reaction.
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Actions need to have consequences. I may have the right to be a fool, but am I entitled to expect the government to shield me from the consequences of my folly?
Yes. If you are a fool by trying to scale the Shard and fall off low enough down to hurt but not kill yourself you will be taken to hospital.
Are we really having this conversation?
The difference is that an anti-vaxxer puts everyone else in the hospital at risk when they enter and it requires a disproportionate amount of resources to treat them.
The NHS is resource limited, it has got a waiting list of 6m people for various treatments last time it was counted. We can't create NHS resources from nothing, there is a 2-5 year lead time to do so.
The choice these people have made is that getting the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, that's up to them. If they then get COVID they need to live with that decision not pass the burden onto the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing. It's the same principle as the government not protecting dividend income for directors who used them to avoid paying NI. They made the decision, these are the consequences.
Your reasoning is leading us down a very, very dangerous path.
There are people who cannot control their eating to the extent they are so morbidly obese that they need knee cartilage operations in their 20s.
To quote you, fine that's up to them. They need to live with that decision and not pass the burden on the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing.
If you want to freeze me out of the health service, fine, I will go private (which I half do anyway).
But I reserve the right to take my tax revenues with me.
Rare day indeed. I agree with you on this issue. The NHS must treat all. It's the covenant.
But point of order, you can't "take your tax revenues with you" if you opt out. All you could do is have a moan - which I sense would suit. You are pretty good at that tbf.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
Do we cut any slack on antisemitism for Palestinians?
By which I mean, is anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by those at the sharp end of Israeli oppression as reprehensible as that expressed by people with no direct involvement?
No we don't. When "Palestinians" want to sweep Israel into the sea they are talking genocide. I am an open critic of the lunatic settlers and politicians like Netanyahu who provide them succour. But Israel has a right to peace and security, and that means not pandering to the lunatics who create a crisis by managing the PA so badly and blockading their part of Gaza and refusing to settle people from multi-generational refugee camps.
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
Pro-tip:
You can get L & B Blue for under a tenner
Under a tenner! Where? I'm guessing "underneath the arches"?
I get them from the small Sainsbury's stores in Aberdeen. Ask for "L & B Blue" and they'll give you a 20 pack of Lambertt and Buttler "official name: L & B Blue, Real Blue". Under 10 GBP - I have no idea what the Groats price would be.
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Actions need to have consequences. I may have the right to be a fool, but am I entitled to expect the government to shield me from the consequences of my folly?
Yes. If you are a fool by trying to scale the Shard and fall off low enough down to hurt but not kill yourself you will be taken to hospital.
Are we really having this conversation?
The difference is that an anti-vaxxer puts everyone else in the hospital at risk when they enter and it requires a disproportionate amount of resources to treat them.
The NHS is resource limited, it has got a waiting list of 6m people for various treatments last time it was counted. We can't create NHS resources from nothing, there is a 2-5 year lead time to do so.
The choice these people have made is that getting the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, that's up to them. If they then get COVID they need to live with that decision not pass the burden onto the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing. It's the same principle as the government not protecting dividend income for directors who used them to avoid paying NI. They made the decision, these are the consequences.
Your reasoning is leading us down a very, very dangerous path.
There are people who cannot control their eating to the extent they are so morbidly obese that they need knee cartilage operations in their 20s.
To quote you, fine that's up to them. They need to live with that decision and not pass the burden on the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing.
If you want to freeze me out of the health service, fine, I will go private (which I half do anyway).
But I reserve the right to take my tax revenues with me.
Yo have completely missed the point that a highly infectious airborne respiratory disease puts a massively disproportionate strain on the NHS.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
Do we cut any slack on antisemitism for Palestinians?
By which I mean, is anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by those at the sharp end of Israeli oppression as reprehensible as that expressed by people with no direct involvement?
People who really cared for the people of Palestine, I mean REALLY cared, would be asking why there hasn't been an election in Gaza since 2006 and why Abbas recently cancelled the latest one indefinitely.
Perhaps the reason there are no elections is that Palestinians are sick and tired of being used as pawns in Hamas's terror game.
I'd be interested to see some polling on people's attitude towards those refusing vaccinations.
I'm sure its harsh. But talk of refusing basic services as some do makes me uncomfortable. You cannot protect everyone from themselves, but piling additional punishment can be difficult.
Out here they came up with an innovative and market-based solution. Vaccines are not compulsory, but if you’re not vaccinated and work in a public-facing job, you need to take a weekly PCR test at your own expense. That’s the best way of dealing with hesitancy so far, and we are one of the most vaccinated countries in the world as a result.
On modelling, and mindful of the "Going to Twitter for details on science" cliche, a mathematician and risk modeller called James Ward ( https://twitter.com/JamesWard73 ) has been consistently good at reviewing the published models, picking up specifically where there are apparent disconnects or excessive pessimism, and extrapolating from them.
The risk of "going to Twitter" is somewhat mitigated by the fact that a whole bunch of very serious people (from the Covid Actuary's Group, through a bunch of verified immunologists and epidemiologists, to science correspondents) have followed and endorsed his work.
And helped by the fact that the published models have been iterating steadily towards his (considerably more positive) extrapolations and away from the more alarmist interpretations.
I think the issue is the assumption that one COVID death is one too many. The government needs to make it clearer that we accept as a nation people will die of COVID.
I think what's interesting about his models is that they tend to predict a bigger wave at the back end of this year but that doesn't seem likely given that we have got a confirmed booster programme for groups 1-9 and Pfizer vaccines scheduled for September and October delivery specifically for that.
I also think that a lot of models severely underestimate the efficacy of vaccines over the longer term and severely underestimate the cumulative reduction in hospitalisations gained from reducing the spread by vaccinated people by at least 45% with one dose and possibly as much as 90% with two doses of Pfizer.
I'd honestly be shocked if any of these models got close to what we actually end up seeing, and the government has got to be prepared for some number of people to die of COVID in order for normal life to resume. The old normal with no social distancing, no testing, as if COVID never happened.
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
Well yes, but that's all true in cricket and rugby too, and yet cricket and rugby manage to make use of technology to reduce the number of controversial decisions. Uniquely, football appears to have used technology to increase the number of controversial decisions.
Rugby Union is appalling at using the video ref.
It has almost certainly increased the amount of controversial and partial decisions.
I thinkt he main effect in cricket is to make LBW much more perilous for the batsman than previously. Getting your pad out a long way in front isn't a sure fire way to avoid it any more.
Union is slowly slowly improving but is still miles behind the use in League.
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
Pro-tip:
You can get L & B Blue for under a tenner
Under a tenner! Where? I'm guessing "underneath the arches"?
Literally nobody I know in Liverpool buys ciggies from the shop now. They all buy either counterfeit (more likely at the moment) or smuggled. This is what punitive taxation which becomes essentially becomes prohibition in all but name happens. It drives people into even more unhealthy options and into the arms of gangsters thus creating more gang culture in the streets.
BTW. I would love to hear some of your “call from Jeremy” stories. I imagine there were some interesting responses.
Glasgow going "fuck it" and just vaccinating everyone in the Southside.
Makes sense to me. 5 months back, risk was highly correlated with age and other medical factors. Now that has been addressed, risk is more highly correlated with geography.
This sort of reactive vaccination strategy only works where you have a vaccine which builds immunity very quickly though! It's a bit tokenistic with the AZ vaccine where you take several weeks to reach immunity, by which time the local mini-wave will be over. But presumably if we're doing the youngsters its all Pfizer/Modena here anyway.
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
Pro-tip:
You can get L & B Blue for under a tenner
Under a tenner! Where? I'm guessing "underneath the arches"?
I get them from the small Sainsbury's stores in Aberdeen. Ask for "L & B Blue" and they'll give you a 20 pack of Lambertt and Buttler "official name: L & B Blue, Real Blue". Under 10 GBP - I have no idea what the Groats price would be.
I'd be interested to see some polling on people's attitude towards those refusing vaccinations.
I'm sure its harsh. But talk of refusing basic services as some do makes me uncomfortable. You cannot protect everyone from themselves, but piling additional punishment can be difficult.
Talk of postponing normality because people choose to be unvaccinated is silly, and society should accept unvacxed will on average die significantly quicker than vacxed. We don't need to go so far as to restrict their access to the NHS though - if the numbers were different it might be a tough ethical question, but with well over 90% vacxed it will be fine.
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
Pro-tip:
You can get L & B Blue for under a tenner
Under a tenner! Where? I'm guessing "underneath the arches"?
I get them from the small Sainsbury's stores in Aberdeen. Ask for "L & B Blue" and they'll give you a 20 pack of Lambertt and Buttler "official name: L & B Blue, Real Blue". Under 10 GBP - I have no idea what the Groats price would be.
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
Well yes, but that's all true in cricket and rugby too, and yet cricket and rugby manage to make use of technology to reduce the number of controversial decisions. Uniquely, football appears to have used technology to increase the number of controversial decisions.
Rugby Union is appalling at using the video ref.
It has almost certainly increased the amount of controversial and partial decisions.
I thinkt he main effect in cricket is to make LBW much more perilous for the batsman than previously. Getting your pad out a long way in front isn't a sure fire way to avoid it any more.
I reckon Shane Warne's average would have been five runs lower with DRS.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
Do we cut any slack on antisemitism for Palestinians?
By which I mean, is anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by those at the sharp end of Israeli oppression as reprehensible as that expressed by people with no direct involvement?
Dehumanising opponents is more understandable in a war situation, but surely either it's wrong or it's not, and since it's wrong theres no such slack.
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
Pro-tip:
You can get L & B Blue for under a tenner
Under a tenner! Where? I'm guessing "underneath the arches"?
I get them from the small Sainsbury's stores in Aberdeen. Ask for "L & B Blue" and they'll give you a 20 pack of Lambertt and Buttler "official name: L & B Blue, Real Blue". Under 10 GBP - I have no idea what the Groats price would be.
Those second quote markets should be brackets.
I *do* get excited about Cigarettes and Alcohol.
Live Forever was definitely the best track on that album.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
Do we cut any slack on antisemitism for Palestinians?
By which I mean, is anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by those at the sharp end of Israeli oppression as reprehensible as that expressed by people with no direct involvement?
That protest was in London, right? Not exactly the sharp end of Israeli oppression.
There will be plenty of people in London with a direct connection to the Arab Israeli conflict. Bound to be. But I wasn't really thinking about that. It's just a question which interests me. The concept of understandable racism. Or even rational racism. Can there be such a thing?
I suspect that there is a not vanishingly small number of people (particularly young people) who had the first vaccination, but reacted quite badly to it and really are not overly keen to have another...
Glasgow going "fuck it" and just vaccinating everyone in the Southside.
Makes sense to me. 5 months back, risk was highly correlated with age and other medical factors. Now that has been addressed, risk is more highly correlated with geography.
This sort of reactive vaccination strategy only works where you have a vaccine which builds immunity very quickly though! It's a bit tokenistic with the AZ vaccine where you take several weeks to reach immunity, by which time the local mini-wave will be over. But presumably if we're doing the youngsters its all Pfizer/Modena here anyway.
True, but I wouldn't want the roll-out to slow down because we're prioritising people in these areas. After all, what makes us think that younger people in the areas with the worse uptake so far will be any more willing to get vaccinated?
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
Pro-tip:
You can get L & B Blue for under a tenner
Under a tenner! Where? I'm guessing "underneath the arches"?
I get them from the small Sainsbury's stores in Aberdeen. Ask for "L & B Blue" and they'll give you a 20 pack of Lambertt and Buttler "official name: L & B Blue, Real Blue". Under 10 GBP - I have no idea what the Groats price would be.
Those second quote markets should be brackets.
I *do* get excited about Cigarettes and Alcohol.
Live Forever was definitely the best track on that album.
Don't get me started. I've recently taken to listening to Morning Glory (the track) on my MP3 player as my wake up song.
On modelling, and mindful of the "Going to Twitter for details on science" cliche, a mathematician and risk modeller called James Ward ( https://twitter.com/JamesWard73 ) has been consistently good at reviewing the published models, picking up specifically where there are apparent disconnects or excessive pessimism, and extrapolating from them.
The risk of "going to Twitter" is somewhat mitigated by the fact that a whole bunch of very serious people (from the Covid Actuary's Group, through a bunch of verified immunologists and epidemiologists, to science correspondents) have followed and endorsed his work.
And helped by the fact that the published models have been iterating steadily towards his (considerably more positive) extrapolations and away from the more alarmist interpretations.
I think the issue is the assumption that one COVID death is one too many. The government needs to make it clearer that we accept as a nation people will die of COVID.
I think what's interesting about his models is that they tend to predict a bigger wave at the back end of this year but that doesn't seem likely given that we have got a confirmed booster programme for groups 1-9 and Pfizer vaccines scheduled for September and October delivery specifically for that.
I also think that a lot of models severely underestimate the efficacy of vaccines over the longer term and severely underestimate the cumulative reduction in hospitalisations gained from reducing the spread by vaccinated people by at least 45% with one dose and possibly as much as 90% with two doses of Pfizer.
I'd honestly be shocked if any of these models got close to what we actually end up seeing, and the government has got to be prepared for some number of people to die of COVID in order for normal life to resume. The old normal with no social distancing, no testing, as if COVID never happened.
Even a very pessimistic scenario where we have say 20k-50k excess deaths from covid per year ongoing but normality would be preferable to a world with these restrictions in perpetuity. What would that do to life expectancy, would it even register, given the deaths are heavily skewed by age? I would be surprised it moved it down by more than a year.
And of course 20k-50k deaths seems extremely unlikely in a mostly vaccinated UK.
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Actions need to have consequences. I may have the right to be a fool, but am I entitled to expect the government to shield me from the consequences of my folly?
Yes. If you are a fool by trying to scale the Shard and fall off low enough down to hurt but not kill yourself you will be taken to hospital.
Are we really having this conversation?
The difference is that an anti-vaxxer puts everyone else in the hospital at risk when they enter and it requires a disproportionate amount of resources to treat them.
The NHS is resource limited, it has got a waiting list of 6m people for various treatments last time it was counted. We can't create NHS resources from nothing, there is a 2-5 year lead time to do so.
The choice these people have made is that getting the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, that's up to them. If they then get COVID they need to live with that decision not pass the burden onto the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing. It's the same principle as the government not protecting dividend income for directors who used them to avoid paying NI. They made the decision, these are the consequences.
Your reasoning is leading us down a very, very dangerous path.
There are people who cannot control their eating to the extent they are so morbidly obese that they need knee cartilage operations in their 20s.
To quote you, fine that's up to them. They need to live with that decision and not pass the burden on the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing.
If you want to freeze me out of the health service, fine, I will go private (which I half do anyway).
But I reserve the right to take my tax revenues with me.
Rare day indeed. I agree with you on this issue. The NHS must treat all. It's the covenant.
Automatic contrarians are usually wrong. But we do need them for moments like this perhaps.
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
Exactly. They have taken an arab and turned him into a devil jew. Its openly anti-semetic.
Do we cut any slack on antisemitism for Palestinians?
By which I mean, is anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by those at the sharp end of Israeli oppression as reprehensible as that expressed by people with no direct involvement?
That protest was in London, right? Not exactly the sharp end of Israeli oppression.
There will be plenty of people in London with a direct connection to the Arab Israeli conflict. Bound to be. But I wasn't really thinking about that. It's just a question which interests me. The concept of understandable racism. Or even rational racism. Can there be such a thing?
I hadn't seen a proper image of the inflatable Corbyn stood next to at the demo. He should be expelled from the Labour Party immediately. Not suspended. Expelled. As should any other Labour MP or member who attended. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1394218824958947328/photo/1
We've got yet another day of the Corbynites claiming Jeremy was present, but not involved. Or didn't see the racist caricature. Or didn't know who else was going to be there. It just goes on. Again and again and again. Excuse after excuse after excuse. And it will just carry on.
Makes a change for Corbyn to be in trouble with Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic issues....
Huh? Its supposed to be a Jew. Looks like it was lifted from the Running of the Jew scene in the first Borat movie.
No its supposed to be Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but they have put the antisemitic devil horn trope on him...its to do with him normalizing Abu Dhab relations with Israel.
So the anti-Semites are now turning on Arab leaders, for trying hard to work out a lasting peace in the region?
The hardliners on both sides don't want peace, they want victory.
And thanks to the missile exchanges, people – in both Israel and Gaza – support the hardliners. In the second world war, we called it the Blitz Spirit. I'm not sure what the Hebrew or Arabic translation is but it is natural that when people are bombed, they want their side to hit back.
Which suits the hardliners. Job done.
There is surely a case that support for Hamas by British people is a dog whistle for anti-semitism.
I'd say it is in some cases. Just as enthusiastic backing here of the Israelis - and especially the uncompromising Israeli right - is a possible tell of white supremacy sympathies.
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
Well yes, but that's all true in cricket and rugby too, and yet cricket and rugby manage to make use of technology to reduce the number of controversial decisions. Uniquely, football appears to have used technology to increase the number of controversial decisions.
Rugby Union is appalling at using the video ref.
It has almost certainly increased the amount of controversial and partial decisions.
I thinkt he main effect in cricket is to make LBW much more perilous for the batsman than previously. Getting your pad out a long way in front isn't a sure fire way to avoid it any more.
That's the aggregate effect, but there are a lot of inside edges that have shown up on review, or been shown not to be there, too. The only time recently it's gone wrong is with the two shocking decisions on the India tour, and with people not understanding Umpire's Call.
It's been interesting watching the County Cricket streams where it isn't available. Regularly see a couple of decisions each innings where you think a review would have changed the decision.
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
Pro-tip:
You can get L & B Blue for under a tenner
Under a tenner! Where? I'm guessing "underneath the arches"?
Literally nobody I know in Liverpool buys ciggies from the shop now. They all buy either counterfeit (more likely at the moment) or smuggled. This is what punitive taxation which becomes essentially becomes prohibition in all but name happens. It drives people into even more unhealthy options and into the arms of gangsters thus creating more gang culture in the streets.
BTW. I would love to hear some of your “call from Jeremy” stories. I imagine there were some interesting responses.
My wife used to go to the newspaper shop round the corner and ask for Marlboro Lights. As the newsagent was turning to the rack, she would go "no, the ones under the counter". He would then produce a pack with Cyrillic lettering for half the price
So on PB we have broad consensus that your toothbrush doesn't need wifi connectivity if people refuse to be vaccinated with a vaccine that was created within the last 12 months they should be excluded from our health service.
Forget whether or not the NHS is in need of "protection". Just on principle because they don't want a government mandated injection they should be shunned and DNRd.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic.
Oh and we have also learned that prosumer is a thing.
I've got no problem if we can all get on with our lives. The punishment becomes rightly due if they are preventing that through their choice. My life has been locked down for zero personal benefit all year so I don't have much sympathy for the scruples of people trying to extend that.
The government is trying to extend that, not the people who have made a choice not to get vaccinated. As I said earlier, this is where we have ended up after a year of such restrictions. No one seems to question the foundation of what people are accepting lock stock and barrel.
We are talking (ok who knows how seriously) about restricting access to healthcare because people have chosen not to be vaccinated. But there is no risk to the NHS and the danger for them is no different, relatively (it is probably a lot smaller), to a mountaineer, base jumper, jump jockey or motorcyclist.
It is unbelievable. The government has brought us to a place where we don't recognise peoples' sovereignty over their own bodies. By all means let pubs, clubs, whatever exclude those who have not been vaccinated. Fine, the market will work out what happens next. And not getting vaccinated is taking a free rider. But the government? Dear god.
No, the risk is that by having COVID patients it causes a huge drain on hospital resources becuase it requires loads of special measures to contain within specific parts of the hospital and needs special staffing rotations who then can't work on other wards without taking loads of otherwise unnecessary precautions.
Think of it like an insurance policy. No insurance company would cover the cost of treatment for COVID if the patient had refused the chance to not get it in the first place. The NHS won't obviously charge people but it can deprioritise them for treatment if it is not feasible to staff a COVID ward for just one person who has refused the vaccine. That one person will cause a denial of treatment to 3 others who have other issues and have been waiting for the hospitals to go back to normal for a year or longer.
You're giving them a responsibility free way out, I don't think we should. This is the best way to not fuck up everyone else's lives with idiotic vaccine passports and other such things that would be necessary to stop them from going into pubs and bars. You're solution makes their failure to get the vaccine our responsibility to carry a vaccine passport and have our movements tracked by the state. No thanks.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Actions need to have consequences. I may have the right to be a fool, but am I entitled to expect the government to shield me from the consequences of my folly?
Yes. If you are a fool by trying to scale the Shard and fall off low enough down to hurt but not kill yourself you will be taken to hospital.
Are we really having this conversation?
The difference is that an anti-vaxxer puts everyone else in the hospital at risk when they enter and it requires a disproportionate amount of resources to treat them.
The NHS is resource limited, it has got a waiting list of 6m people for various treatments last time it was counted. We can't create NHS resources from nothing, there is a 2-5 year lead time to do so.
The choice these people have made is that getting the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, that's up to them. If they then get COVID they need to live with that decision not pass the burden onto the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing. It's the same principle as the government not protecting dividend income for directors who used them to avoid paying NI. They made the decision, these are the consequences.
Your reasoning is leading us down a very, very dangerous path.
There are people who cannot control their eating to the extent they are so morbidly obese that they need knee cartilage operations in their 20s.
To quote you, fine that's up to them. They need to live with that decision and not pass the burden on the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing.
If you want to freeze me out of the health service, fine, I will go private (which I half do anyway).
But I reserve the right to take my tax revenues with me.
Yo have completely missed the point that a highly infectious airborne respiratory disease puts a massively disproportionate strain on the NHS.
What puts a massive strain on the NHS is that modern medicine is able to do far more than it ever could, and people are living far longer than they ever did.
In 1945, when the NHS was set up, anybody with a whole range of serious illnesses conveniently died. Organ transplants, oncology etc were pipe dreams.
COVID 80 years ago would have been 'so what' because many of the people that have died from it would never have made it to age where covid could harvest them.
Glasgow going "fuck it" and just vaccinating everyone in the Southside.
Makes sense to me. 5 months back, risk was highly correlated with age and other medical factors. Now that has been addressed, risk is more highly correlated with geography.
This sort of reactive vaccination strategy only works where you have a vaccine which builds immunity very quickly though! It's a bit tokenistic with the AZ vaccine where you take several weeks to reach immunity, by which time the local mini-wave will be over. But presumably if we're doing the youngsters its all Pfizer/Modena here anyway.
True, but I wouldn't want the roll-out to slow down because we're prioritising people in these areas. After all, what makes us think that younger people in the areas with the worse uptake so far will be any more willing to get vaccinated?
I had this thought too as my fiancee isn't currently vaccinated.
But i) We'd have to live in Bolton ii) The risk to 18-37 in Bolton is considerably higher than Bassetlaw right now iii) The total amount of jabs as a proportion of the entire stock going to hotspot areas is very small, even if it's a large number for the area concerned.
I came to the conclusion surge vaccination was probably worth it.
On modelling, and mindful of the "Going to Twitter for details on science" cliche, a mathematician and risk modeller called James Ward ( https://twitter.com/JamesWard73 ) has been consistently good at reviewing the published models, picking up specifically where there are apparent disconnects or excessive pessimism, and extrapolating from them.
The risk of "going to Twitter" is somewhat mitigated by the fact that a whole bunch of very serious people (from the Covid Actuary's Group, through a bunch of verified immunologists and epidemiologists, to science correspondents) have followed and endorsed his work.
And helped by the fact that the published models have been iterating steadily towards his (considerably more positive) extrapolations and away from the more alarmist interpretations.
I think the issue is the assumption that one COVID death is one too many. The government needs to make it clearer that we accept as a nation people will die of COVID.
I think what's interesting about his models is that they tend to predict a bigger wave at the back end of this year but that doesn't seem likely given that we have got a confirmed booster programme for groups 1-9 and Pfizer vaccines scheduled for September and October delivery specifically for that.
I also think that a lot of models severely underestimate the efficacy of vaccines over the longer term and severely underestimate the cumulative reduction in hospitalisations gained from reducing the spread by vaccinated people by at least 45% with one dose and possibly as much as 90% with two doses of Pfizer.
I'd honestly be shocked if any of these models got close to what we actually end up seeing, and the government has got to be prepared for some number of people to die of COVID in order for normal life to resume. The old normal with no social distancing, no testing, as if COVID never happened.
Even a very pessimistic scenario where we have say 20k-50k excess deaths from covid per year ongoing but normality would be preferable to a world with these restrictions in perpetuity. What would that do to life expectancy, would it even register, given the deaths are heavily skewed by age? I would be surprised it moved it down by more than a year.
And of course 20k-50k deaths seems extremely unlikely in a mostly vaccinated UK.
Yes, I think anywhere within that range would be acceptable, we accept 10k-30k flu deaths per year and it's likely that COVID would be competing for the same people. As harsh as it sounds there is an acceptable level of deaths for the resumption of normal life.
First off, if the police are chasing a baddie and they shoot him, they take him to hospital. I doubt the baddie would be able to get an insurance policy protecting him against being shot by plod.
Secondly, yes, if unvaccinated people get the pox (how?) then there is a risk of spreading it to those people who have been vaccinated but are in the 5%-odd where the vaccine is ineffective. That is a bad situation.
Thirdly, while also accepting that, for an unvaccinated society, COVID is nothing like the flu, we are in a vaccinated society and hence once you consider the vaccinated, the likely effect on the NHS will be small, specialist equipment or not.
And finally, we are talking about fundamental freedoms here - the right to refuse the government putting a foreign substance into our bodies for whatever reason.
That is the principle that imo is worth the use of some extra ventilators.
Bollocks to that. Our lives and those of our kids have been turned upside down in the most extraordinary breach of fundamental freedoms it’s possible to conceive. Sending an armed vaccination squad round to your house would pale by comparison, and it would be doing you a favour as well as the rest of us.
I tend to be hardline on this sort of thing, but even i don't favour compulsory vaccination - by all means make life awkward for people who don't have a vaccine card (I don't get at all why this is controversial if it's literally all it's for), but don't actually inject at gunpoint as you suggest. There's plenty still to do in vaccinating all the willing, including children.
Glasgow going "fuck it" and just vaccinating everyone in the Southside.
Makes sense to me. 5 months back, risk was highly correlated with age and other medical factors. Now that has been addressed, risk is more highly correlated with geography.
This sort of reactive vaccination strategy only works where you have a vaccine which builds immunity very quickly though! It's a bit tokenistic with the AZ vaccine where you take several weeks to reach immunity, by which time the local mini-wave will be over. But presumably if we're doing the youngsters its all Pfizer/Modena here anyway.
True, but I wouldn't want the roll-out to slow down because we're prioritising people in these areas. After all, what makes us think that younger people in the areas with the worse uptake so far will be any more willing to get vaccinated?
I had this thought too as my fiancee isn't currently vaccinated.
But i) We'd have to live in Bolton ii) The risk to 18-37 in Bolton is considerably higher than Bassetlaw right now iii) The total amount of jabs as a proportion of the entire stock going to hotspot areas is very small, even if it's a large number for the area concerned.
I came to the conclusion surge vaccination was probably worth it.
Probably okay so long as Bolton doesn't become London and Birmingham.
To be fair, I thought that VAR decision demonstrated everything that is wrong with VAR. Half a shoulder offside when measured by a computer a minute after it was given. Let the goal stand.
It was classic VAR. Anyone else remember "half a yard" and "strikers benefit of doubt"?
A couple of years ago football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - fundamentally refused to use technology to rule on controversial decisions. Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology. Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
Well yes, but that's all true in cricket and rugby too, and yet cricket and rugby manage to make use of technology to reduce the number of controversial decisions. Uniquely, football appears to have used technology to increase the number of controversial decisions.
Rugby Union is appalling at using the video ref.
It has almost certainly increased the amount of controversial and partial decisions.
I thinkt he main effect in cricket is to make LBW much more perilous for the batsman than previously. Getting your pad out a long way in front isn't a sure fire way to avoid it any more.
I reckon Shane Warne's average would have been five runs lower with DRS.
Tufnell reckons he only ever got one first class wicket lbw where the batsman pushed a long way forward. The umpire wanted a quick end to the match to get back home.
Wasim Akram thinks he would have got over 1000 test wickets with DRS.
Morning all, happy (nearly) freedom day. It's quite a milestone and imo ought to be celebrated. Whatever you can now do today you should make sure to do, whether you want to or not. I certainly will be. I can't wait to get out there and hug a granny. Don't care whose it is.
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
Pro-tip:
You can get L & B Blue for under a tenner
Under a tenner! Where? I'm guessing "underneath the arches"?
Literally nobody I know in Liverpool buys ciggies from the shop now. They all buy either counterfeit (more likely at the moment) or smuggled. This is what punitive taxation which becomes essentially becomes prohibition in all but name happens. It drives people into even more unhealthy options and into the arms of gangsters thus creating more gang culture in the streets.
BTW. I would love to hear some of your “call from Jeremy” stories. I imagine there were some interesting responses.
My wife used to go to the newspaper shop round the corner and ask for Marlboro Lights. As the newsagent was turning to the rack, she would go "no, the ones under the counter". He would then produce a pack with Cyrillic lettering for half the price
There is a shop round the corner from goodison park that does that. If the coppers had a clue they would look for the newsagents with a queue outside on matchdays
Comments
Are we really having this conversation?
The govt by luck or design has got you into a position where I'm sure you are not even joking.
Ponder that.
There are a zillion activities which are grossly irresponsible and many which are illegal.
We don't go around denying the perpetrators health care. No matter how complicated it might be.
And I thought that people don't get to ventilators now if they have covid?
Good debating.
And if anyone wants a good business idea, for free, there is surely a huge untapped market for tooth brushes aimed at amateurs.
The NHS is resource limited, it has got a waiting list of 6m people for various treatments last time it was counted. We can't create NHS resources from nothing, there is a 2-5 year lead time to do so.
The choice these people have made is that getting the vaccine is worse than getting COVID. Fine, that's up to them. If they then get COVID they need to live with that decision not pass the burden onto the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing. It's the same principle as the government not protecting dividend income for directors who used them to avoid paying NI. They made the decision, these are the consequences.
Ultimately we had to do all this to prevent what's happened in Brazil and India. Sacrificing our personal freedoms was worth it for the greater good.
No one (I'm looking at Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) is prepared to say it as it is. You just know that if lots of people from ethnic minorities start dying this autumn from COVID, then Labour (and Marcus Rashford and the rest of the twatterati) will be all over it. And I think this worries the government (it shouldn't).
Awkward start at Waitrose though. Real foot in mouth job. I got my essentials as usual and (also as usual) asked for a packet of Marlboro Gold killer sticks to round it off. "Don't have any," said Ms Checkout. "They've been suspended."
"Oh," I said. "Strange. Is there some sort of health scare?"
She looked at me quizzically for a second then giggled, giving me the benefit of it being a dry-as-dust joke. Which it wasn't.
Possible the stupidest thing I've said since "Yes, alright," to "Do you want to do some phone canvassing for Jeremy?"
You can get L & B Blue for under a tenner
As I've pointed out before I don't think there are any great answers here but there does need to be more effort made in ensuring those who haven't organised being vaccinated are encouraged to do so. And the time is coming when that may need to be done using a stick rather than a carrot.
It's pretty obvious what the public will think of that (should have bleeding well got vaccinated), and I also think it will reduce the numbers of those who refuse the vaccine a bit more, at the margins.
At the moment there are still loads of people desperate to have the vaccine, but once they're all dosed the government can put extra effort into cajoling and persuading the reluctant to join in. Some people may have to learn the hard way, by seeing friends and family suffer, but I don't think it will cause major issues at a society-wide level.
Nowadays, football - uniquely amongst all sports at the top level - generates more controversy than it solves by using technology.
Why is football so uniquely pig-headed and incompetent? Why does football do things so badly?
The risk of "going to Twitter" is somewhat mitigated by the fact that a whole bunch of very serious people (from the Covid Actuary's Group, through a bunch of verified immunologists and epidemiologists, to science correspondents) have followed and endorsed his work.
And helped by the fact that the published models have been iterating steadily towards his (considerably more positive) extrapolations and away from the more alarmist interpretations.
Glasgow going "fuck it" and just vaccinating everyone in the Southside.
And thanks to the missile exchanges, people – in both Israel and Gaza – support the hardliners. In the second world war, we called it the Blitz Spirit. I'm not sure what the Hebrew or Arabic translation is but it is natural that when people are bombed, they want their side to hit back.
Which suits the hardliners. Job done.
so you can join in with the pile on with a clear conscience?
And, I'll be honest, I've been happily waiting my turn for the COVID jab, simply because it is being tested on people like me who are ahead of me in the queue!
As for pregnant women et al, well, I feel for them and I think we should hammer this point to the anti-vaxxers, but I'm not sure we should stay locked down just for them.
There are people who cannot control their eating to the extent they are so morbidly obese that they need knee cartilage operations in their 20s.
To quote you, fine that's up to them. They need to live with that decision and not pass the burden on the rest of us who have been responsible and done the right thing.
If you want to freeze me out of the health service, fine, I will go private (which I half do anyway).
But I reserve the right to take my tax revenues with me.
When the Joshua v Ruiz fight was there a couple of years ago, they constructed a 15,000 seater tent! https://arenagroup.com/project/diriyah-arena/
I wonder what time they’ll schedule it for? Even with the Saudi money, they’ll still need a big US PPV audience - but there’s 11 hours’ time difference between Vegas and Saudi.
By which I mean, is anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by those at the sharp end of Israeli oppression as reprehensible as that expressed by people with no direct involvement?
It has almost certainly increased the amount of controversial and partial decisions.
Personally I think this is a huge problem and more should be done to address it than a few pence on a litre of Fanta.
But that is a linked but separate issue to the negative externalities caused by vaccine refusal.
But point of order, you can't "take your tax revenues with you" if you opt out. All you could do is have a moan - which I sense would suit. You are pretty good at that tbf.
Perhaps the reason there are no elections is that Palestinians are sick and tired of being used as pawns in Hamas's terror game.
I think what's interesting about his models is that they tend to predict a bigger wave at the back end of this year but that doesn't seem likely given that we have got a confirmed booster programme for groups 1-9 and Pfizer vaccines scheduled for September and October delivery specifically for that.
I also think that a lot of models severely underestimate the efficacy of vaccines over the longer term and severely underestimate the cumulative reduction in hospitalisations gained from reducing the spread by vaccinated people by at least 45% with one dose and possibly as much as 90% with two doses of Pfizer.
I'd honestly be shocked if any of these models got close to what we actually end up seeing, and the government has got to be prepared for some number of people to die of COVID in order for normal life to resume. The old normal with no social distancing, no testing, as if COVID never happened.
BTW. I would love to hear some of your “call from Jeremy” stories. I imagine there were some interesting responses.
5 months back, risk was highly correlated with age and other medical factors.
Now that has been addressed, risk is more highly correlated with geography.
This sort of reactive vaccination strategy only works where you have a vaccine which builds immunity very quickly though! It's a bit tokenistic with the AZ vaccine where you take several weeks to reach immunity, by which time the local mini-wave will be over. But presumably if we're doing the youngsters its all Pfizer/Modena here anyway.
I *do* get excited about Cigarettes and Alcohol.
And of course 20k-50k deaths seems extremely unlikely in a mostly vaccinated UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jul/08/terrorism.attackonlondon
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/24/westminster-attack-khalid-masood-anti-muslim-backlash-mosques-east-london-birmingham
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-backlash-british-muslims
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/14/britain-muslims-backlash-fear-david-haines-murder
It's been interesting watching the County Cricket streams where it isn't available. Regularly see a couple of decisions each innings where you think a review would have changed the decision.
In 1945, when the NHS was set up, anybody with a whole range of serious illnesses conveniently died. Organ transplants, oncology etc were pipe dreams.
COVID 80 years ago would have been 'so what' because many of the people that have died from it would never have made it to age where covid could harvest them.
But
i) We'd have to live in Bolton
ii) The risk to 18-37 in Bolton is considerably higher than Bassetlaw right now
iii) The total amount of jabs as a proportion of the entire stock going to hotspot areas is very small, even if it's a large number for the area concerned.
I came to the conclusion surge vaccination was probably worth it.
Wasim Akram thinks he would have got over 1000 test wickets with DRS.