That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
There is also an ethical point, which is should one be vaccinating people (with the risks, however small, of side effects) not to protect them* but really to protect others?
*look at the statistics
Yes and the press are enjoying debating that because whatever the government decides will be wrong.
Whatever one thinks of Tony Blair, he does tend to take a position on this sort of thing. He was very clear that we should vaccinate children.
Interestingly, Nandy now saying we should vaccinate children.
Well, the nudge theory would suggest it’s a good idea. Want to not wear a mask and stand at the bar in the pub? Get your shots...
It certainly should apply for travellers. It's ridiculous to force the vaccinated to isolate and take expensive tests while unvaccinated Britons can do what they like.
Even the French - the FRENCH - are ahead of us on this.
Really.... the Frogs were clogging up Dover by refusing to let Brits pass thro without a 3 day covid test as recently as a few weeks ago.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
There is something of a shy BME vote for conservatives in the US as was seen last November, certainly most minorities do still vote Democrat but a fair number did vote for Trump.
I don't think who wins the House next year will threaten US democracy, victory in the House will itself be an exercise of democracy and of course it would require victory in the Senate too for any objections to state votes cast in the EC in the 2024 Presidential election to be upheld
There is something of a shy BME vote for conservatives in the US as was seen last November, certainly most minorities do still vote Democrat but a fair number did vote for Trump.
I don't think who wins the House next year will threaten US democracy, victory in the House will itself be an exercise of democracy and of course it would require victory in the Senate too for any objections to state votes cast in the EC in the 2024 Presidential election to be upheld
So the representatives of the House and Senate electors of 2022 can overrule the wishes of the 2024 Presidential electors, and therefore all subsequent electors without cause or evidence and that is no threat to democracy? Bonkers I am afraid.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Andrew Wakefield and his mob love you.
We've been vaccinating kids for decades.
Isn’t the issue that we haven’t tested these on kids yet? Presumably you wouldn’t let an under 12 have Pfizer as it hasn’t been approved for them.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Err, kids are already vaccinated for a whole number of infectious diseases, because we don’t want things spread around that might affect vulnerable members of society.
We really don’t want asymptomatic infectious kids running around schools in September, when some of them live with vulnerable parents and grandparents who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons.
Hospital outbreak in Kanta-Häme, Finland: 80% of 80 people getting Indian variant in a Finnish hospital had received 1st dose of vaccine (40% of patients got infected & 7 died). Less problems among fully vaccinated personnel: vaccines work, after 2nd shot!
I'm reminded of @Leon's theory that Covid has a hubris detector. Think you've got one over on the 'Rona, and it will bite back.
Which country made a big thing of delaying second doses to max out on first doses? It made sense at the time, but ...
And still does.
The emphasis on first doses during the winter helped bring infection rates down and then the switch towards second doses in the spring gave deeper protection to the vulnerable.
Looks like Boris got lucky again.
Yup the decision still stands up despite variants. The 12 week gap in a supply limited environment gets more people protected faster.
I have little problem with a shoot to kill policy for armed terrorists, or targeted drone strikes on combatants, but I think the death penalty for criminal justice is abhorrent.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
There is something of a shy BME vote for conservatives in the US as was seen last November, certainly most minorities do still vote Democrat but a fair number did vote for Trump.
I don't think who wins the House next year will threaten US democracy, victory in the House will itself be an exercise of democracy and of course it would require victory in the Senate too for any objections to state votes cast in the EC in the 2024 Presidential election to be upheld
So the representatives of the House and Senate electors of 2022 can overrule the wishes of the 2024 Presidential electors, and therefore all subsequent electors without cause or evidence and that is no threat to democracy? Bonkers I am afraid.
It is a threat to the US as a Presidential system maybe but not to democracy as such no, it would just shift to a more parliamentary democracy with the President ultimately confirmed by the elected Congress.
It would also require a party to have been elected to majority control of both the House and Senate to be able to successfully object to the casting of a state's electoral college votes
Well, the nudge theory would suggest it’s a good idea. Want to not wear a mask and stand at the bar in the pub? Get your shots...
It certainly should apply for travellers. It's ridiculous to force the vaccinated to isolate and take expensive tests while unvaccinated Britons can do what they like.
Even the French - the FRENCH - are ahead of us on this.
Already the plan elsewhere in the British Isles - fully vaccinated will have less onerous/no border control requirements arriving in Guernsey:
As I've said before on here, I think the Guernsey rules are still far too onerous, but at least they're better than the current UK ones.
How would you modify them?
Off the top of my head, move vaccinated who've been to Amber from Green to Blue. And vaccinated who've been to Red from red to Amber seems like a sensible plan.
If you've been vaccinated the Amber Country arrival requirements aren't that tough (you're in "Green") - test on arrival & stay home until you get negative test, (24h) then test again day 7.
If you haven't been vaccinated you get test on arrival and stay home until your day 7 test comes back negative.
I think it's a good way of encouraging vaccination.
Frankly no one should be travelling to a Red List country - and if they have sufficiently compelling reasons to do so, can spend the 14 days in quarantine until they get their negative test.
Note Guernsey does not require pre-arrival COVID testing.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Andrew Wakefield and his mob love you.
We've been vaccinating kids for decades.
Vaccinating them to protect them. Given the risk basis, this is vaccinating them to protect others (“the Little Spreaders”).
If you’d ant see a difference between the two you need to step back and reconsider. You may reach the same conclusion but at least you’ll have applied some intelligence rather than reaching you for oh so clever but really quite dim witted put down. This is nothing to do with Wakefield.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
Foreign aid should be a matter of individual choice through charitable contributions. We gain nothing from having the government borrow money from our grandchildren to send abroad on our behalf.
Well that’s objectively not true thanks to Mitchell’s work.
For example funding secondary education for young girls in East Africa is the programme that has had the biggest single impact on combatting radicalism in the area. (The theory is that educated women + microfinance = small businesses. These lead to a stake in society and give them the freedom to choose their partners. And funnily enough they would rather pair up with stable productive members of society than radicals. And young men are smart enough to realise that if they want sex then they need to smarten up their act…)
Even if the theory works in reality (and most aid ones don't), why can that not be done through individual charitable contributions if people think that is to their benefit?
Why do we have to be forced by the government to squander money we don't have?
For the same reason that governments build roads, schools and hospitals. There are some things that are better done collectively
Yes, and you haven't produced any evidence that that's the case with development aid. But it's very impressive how you treat your airy assertion as a proven fact.
But it’s very impressive the way that you dismiss a thoughtful argument with “well even it it works in reality” rather than engaging with the excellent work that has been done in the last decade precisely to make sure it works in reality!
Thanks. I'm professionally familiar with the large volume of academic literature that shows how little most development aid achieves, even where the outcomes aren't perverse.
There is something of a shy BME vote for conservatives in the US as was seen last November, certainly most minorities do still vote Democrat but a fair number did vote for Trump.
I don't think who wins the House next year will threaten US democracy, victory in the House will itself be an exercise of democracy and of course it would require victory in the Senate too for any objections to state votes cast in the EC in the 2024 Presidential election to be upheld
So the representatives of the House and Senate electors of 2022 can overrule the wishes of the 2024 Presidential electors, and therefore all subsequent electors without cause or evidence and that is no threat to democracy? Bonkers I am afraid.
It is a threat to the US as a Presidential system maybe but not to democracy as such no, it would just shift to a more parliamentary democracy with the President ultimately confirmed by the elected Congress
What makes you think the people already openly willing and plotting to steal the 2024 election will allow free and fair elections for the 2026 House or Senate elections? Sorry, but it is just naive to the point of bonkers.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
I’ve very much done the same - my Dad was a pioneer of what today is called venture philanthropy and we’ve tried to continue his legacy
Agreed.
It works if lots of people with links follow those links - for me that's diabetic, or local, charities, amongst others.
If my mum's probate finally emerges from the family court, my plan is to try and find a reasonably substantial donation to a local charity for part of a Covid recovery worker for a year for the local parish.
Admin, admin...
Send me a PM if you want and I can ask the team if they are working with any charities in your area. This is what we did in April for example
I had a look at your link - very interesting, and a broad range of charities.
I can't help but think that many of the 'anti-woke' brigade would be horrified at some of those you are giving grants to; e.g. those promoting black leadership, mental health for Muslims, fighting for gender equality, and several others - quite right-on, PC, identity causes. Good on you.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
I think that goes for any economic target like that.
Achieving the percentage becomes the be all and end all, and the yardstick by which your success is measured. Nothing else matters.
I had similar concerns with defining "ending" child poverty by those households who were just the right side of the line of 60% of average income under Gordon Brown.
I have little problem with a shoot to kill policy for armed terrorists, or targeted drone strikes on combatants, but I think the death penalty for criminal justice is abhorrent.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
It's disgusting, and indefensible.
The other thing that winds me up regarding this is just how many pro life politicians in America are in favour of the death penalty. Have a little consistency please.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law an extreme abortion ban, citing "Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."
She has also presided over the state sanctioned killings of six people under Alabama's death penalty law since she assumed office in 2017. That year, she signed the ironically named "Fair Justice Act," an Orwellian edict that cuts short the appeals process for those who have been condemned to die by the state.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Err, kids are already vaccinated for a whole number of infectious diseases, because we don’t want things spread around that might affect vulnerable members of society.
We really don’t want asymptomatic infectious kids running around schools in September, when some of them live with vulnerable parents and grandparents who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons.
They are vaccinated with, say MMR, to protect themselves. That it also benefits others is a side effect not the primary reason. You are suggesting reversing this position.
There is something of a shy BME vote for conservatives in the US as was seen last November, certainly most minorities do still vote Democrat but a fair number did vote for Trump.
I don't think who wins the House next year will threaten US democracy, victory in the House will itself be an exercise of democracy and of course it would require victory in the Senate too for any objections to state votes cast in the EC in the 2024 Presidential election to be upheld
So the representatives of the House and Senate electors of 2022 can overrule the wishes of the 2024 Presidential electors, and therefore all subsequent electors without cause or evidence and that is no threat to democracy? Bonkers I am afraid.
It is a threat to the US as a Presidential system maybe but not to democracy as such no, it would just shift to a more parliamentary democracy with the President ultimately confirmed by the elected Congress
What makes you think the people already openly willing and plotting to steal the 2024 election will allow free and fair elections for the 2026 House or Senate elections? Sorry, but it is just naive to the point of bonkers.
They can think what they want, the US Constitution requires elections to Congress to be held and it would require a party to have won both the House and Senate in an election for a successful challenge to any EC votes cast by a state to be upheld
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Andrew Wakefield and his mob love you.
We've been vaccinating kids for decades.
Vaccinating them to protect them. Given the risk basis, this is vaccinating them to protect others (“the Little Spreaders”).
If you’d ant see a difference between the two you need to step back and reconsider. You may reach the same conclusion but at least you’ll have applied some intelligence rather than reaching you for oh so clever but really quite dim witted put down. This is nothing to do with Wakefield.
It is a fair question to ask if it is right to vaccinate children primarily for the medical good of society rather than themselves.
The answer, given the damage covid has caused to society, and is still causing, including to children and their education is clearly it is fine though.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Andrew Wakefield and his mob love you.
We've been vaccinating kids for decades.
Vaccinating them to protect them. Given the risk basis, this is vaccinating them to protect others (“the Little Spreaders”).
If you’d ant see a difference between the two you need to step back and reconsider. You may reach the same conclusion but at least you’ll have applied some intelligence rather than reaching you for oh so clever but really quite dim witted put down. This is nothing to do with Wakefield.
Vaccinating to stop the spread in them and others.
I've had this ethical discussion with several people over the past few months, I'm quite well versed in this subject given my father's former job and small role in the vaccine roll out.
As a parent, it is something I've been aware of for months, especially with the regular bouts of self isolation they've had to endure.
I have little problem with a shoot to kill policy for armed terrorists, or targeted drone strikes on combatants, but I think the death penalty for criminal justice is abhorrent.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
It's disgusting, and indefensible.
The other thing that winds me up regarding this is just how many pro life politicians in America are in favour of the death penalty. Have a little consistency please.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law an extreme abortion ban, citing "Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."
She has also presided over the state sanctioned killings of six people under Alabama's death penalty law since she assumed office in 2017. That year, she signed the ironically named "Fair Justice Act," an Orwellian edict that cuts short the appeals process for those who have been condemned to die by the state.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
The ethical basis for vaccinating children is an argument that has already happened. We vaccinate against Rubella not so much to protect the people we are vaccinating but to protect their as yet not even conceived children. Likewise we vaccinate all children against HPV primarily to protect against some types of cervical cancer which half of those vaccinated do not have (there are some other cancers caused by HPV, but I think I’m right in saying that cervical cancer is the most significant).
So we are already vaccinating children to protect others.
Britain has become the world’s most sophisticated laboratory for the virus’s evolution, with 60 percent of England’s coronavirus cases being analyzed through genomic sequencing. That has allowed the country to pick up on the earliest signs of dangerous variants, and made Britain a harbinger of the challenges facing even heavily vaccinated nations as newer versions of the virus reach the unvaccinated.
I have little problem with a shoot to kill policy for armed terrorists, or targeted drone strikes on combatants, but I think the death penalty for criminal justice is abhorrent.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
It's disgusting, and indefensible.
The other thing that winds me up regarding this is just how many pro life politicians in America are in favour of the death penalty. Have a little consistency please.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law an extreme abortion ban, citing "Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."
She has also presided over the state sanctioned killings of six people under Alabama's death penalty law since she assumed office in 2017. That year, she signed the ironically named "Fair Justice Act," an Orwellian edict that cuts short the appeals process for those who have been condemned to die by the state.
Come to think of it, wasn't Amazon notorious for not making a profit – after aggressive reinvestment?
That was my thought when I saw the threshold - whether it would actually be financially optimal for companies to reduce their profits below the threshold, compared to making more and paying the tax? That you can massage the profit figure downwards makes the risks worse.
The Italians have a saying for it - "Fatta la legge. Trovato l'inganno".
(As soon as a law is passed, loopholes are found.)
Anyway, I see from today's Times that Dido Harding wants to become Head of the NHS. FFS!
Also for @Leon, I second @NickPalmer's recommendation of Outlander - ("You might actually like Outlander 1-2 (Netflix, which I caught up with recently) - basically about historical romp around the Scottish clans, Bonnie Prince Charlie etc. Because it's got a plucky heroine and a dashing highlander, it was initially written off as Mills & Boon stuff, but it cheerfully through time travel, fantasy, satire, brutality, and some really good acting into the mix, and it's really very good. Try a couple of installments to get the flavour.")
I've only just started it - Daughter has been learning Gaelic during lockdown so she wanted to hear it spoken - but am really enjoying it. It is very well acted, draws you into the story and has also made me interested in Scottish history for that period about which I don't know much.
In other news am taking said Daughter for a spa day in Keswick later for her day off, a much delayed Xmas present from 2019. Mud baths, massages, facials etc - the lot. We - well her, certainly - will look very fetching should any dashing highlanders be around.
Erm, rather short notice. Has Gavin Williamson only just learnt how to work a calendar?
I assume he means the lateral flow tests that have been issued to all pupils and teachers. They take about 45 minutes to get a result, including the time taken to perform the test.
I have little problem with a shoot to kill policy for armed terrorists, or targeted drone strikes on combatants, but I think the death penalty for criminal justice is abhorrent.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
It's disgusting, and indefensible.
The other thing that winds me up regarding this is just how many pro life politicians in America are in favour of the death penalty. Have a little consistency please.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law an extreme abortion ban, citing "Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."
She has also presided over the state sanctioned killings of six people under Alabama's death penalty law since she assumed office in 2017. That year, she signed the ironically named "Fair Justice Act," an Orwellian edict that cuts short the appeals process for those who have been condemned to die by the state.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Andrew Wakefield and his mob love you.
We've been vaccinating kids for decades.
Vaccinating them to protect them. Given the risk basis, this is vaccinating them to protect others (“the Little Spreaders”).
If you’d ant see a difference between the two you need to step back and reconsider. You may reach the same conclusion but at least you’ll have applied some intelligence rather than reaching you for oh so clever but really quite dim witted put down. This is nothing to do with Wakefield.
Disagree with your premise. The risk delta between 13-17 year olds and 18-24 year olds is minimal. Given that 6,000+ children have already been hospitalised with covid in this country with about a third of them exposed so far, then refraining from vaxing them means deliberately choosing to hospitalise over 10,000 more children. And hospitalised covid patients have far too high a rate of organ damage going forwards.
There is no way that side effects will have anywhere near that effect. The current risk balance calculations factor in a very small risk of exposure to the virus; if we unlock without herd immunity, everyone will see the virus sooner or later.
And Long Covid is a thing; the ONS found a significant fraction of those who were infected in the first wave showing symptoms over a year afterwards.
So I think they should be vaxxed to protect themselves. That very few end up being so sick that we can’t save their lives with medical intervention and intensive care doesn’t mean they’re unaffected. As a parent, kids being hospitalised does not equal “unaffected” to me.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
The ethical basis for vaccinating children is an argument that has already happened. We vaccinate against Rubella not so much to protect the people we are vaccinating but to protect their as yet not even conceived children. Likewise we vaccinate all children against HPV primarily to protect against some types of cervical cancer which half of those vaccinated do not have (there are some other cancers caused by HPV, but I think I’m right in saying that cervical cancer is the most significant).
So we are already vaccinating children to protect others.
I suppose part of that does include protecting anti-vaxxers.
Not sure I’m comfortable with telling parents to get their kids vaccinated to protect those not willing to get vaccinated themselves.
Yes, yes, I know there are people who can’t get the vaccine, but it’s a much much smaller number than the anti-vaxxers.
Very strong “data not dates” message from Hancock on Sky: “timing of when we can take that step (4) is the big question. We’re not saying no to 21 June at this point. We’ll keep watching the data for another week”... link between cases/admissions “not as absolute as it once was”....
The upshot this morning: the Govt aren’t saying no to 21 June! They’re proceeding with caution, having been (rightly) criticised for acting too late against the virus in the past.
There is something of a shy BME vote for conservatives in the US as was seen last November, certainly most minorities do still vote Democrat but a fair number did vote for Trump.
I don't think who wins the House next year will threaten US democracy, victory in the House will itself be an exercise of democracy and of course it would require victory in the Senate too for any objections to state votes cast in the EC in the 2024 Presidential election to be upheld
So the representatives of the House and Senate electors of 2022 can overrule the wishes of the 2024 Presidential electors, and therefore all subsequent electors without cause or evidence and that is no threat to democracy? Bonkers I am afraid.
It is a threat to the US as a Presidential system maybe but not to democracy as such no, it would just shift to a more parliamentary democracy with the President ultimately confirmed by the elected Congress
What makes you think the people already openly willing and plotting to steal the 2024 election will allow free and fair elections for the 2026 House or Senate elections? Sorry, but it is just naive to the point of bonkers.
They can think what they want, the US Constitution requires elections to Congress to be held and it would require a party to have won both the House and Senate in an election for a successful challenge to any EC votes cast by a state to be upheld
Doesn't specify how the elections are run though. Which is the point. For example, no requirement to have one polling place per 1000 or whatever.
I have little problem with a shoot to kill policy for armed terrorists, or targeted drone strikes on combatants, but I think the death penalty for criminal justice is abhorrent.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
It's disgusting, and indefensible.
The other thing that winds me up regarding this is just how many pro life politicians in America are in favour of the death penalty. Have a little consistency please.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law an extreme abortion ban, citing "Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."
She has also presided over the state sanctioned killings of six people under Alabama's death penalty law since she assumed office in 2017. That year, she signed the ironically named "Fair Justice Act," an Orwellian edict that cuts short the appeals process for those who have been condemned to die by the state.
Very strong “data not dates” message from Hancock on Sky: “timing of when we can take that step (4) is the big question. We’re not saying no to 21 June at this point. We’ll keep watching the data for another week”... link between cases/admissions “not as absolute as it once was”....
The upshot this morning: the Govt aren’t saying no to 21 June! They’re proceeding with caution, having been (rightly) criticised for acting too late against the virus in the past.
This is potentially massive too: +40% transmissibility instead of +70% would make all the difference to how bad a wave we have:
Hancock says the latest advice is that Delta is 40% more transmissible - not as bad as some of the estimates of up to 70%! but still something to take very seriously.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
The ethical basis for vaccinating children is an argument that has already happened. We vaccinate against Rubella not so much to protect the people we are vaccinating but to protect their as yet not even conceived children. Likewise we vaccinate all children against HPV primarily to protect against some types of cervical cancer which half of those vaccinated do not have (there are some other cancers caused by HPV, but I think I’m right in saying that cervical cancer is the most significant).
So we are already vaccinating children to protect others.
I suppose part of that does include protecting anti-vaxxers.
Not sure I’m comfortable with telling parents to get their kids vaccinated to protect those not willing to get vaccinated themselves.
Yes, yes, I know there are people who can’t get the vaccine, but it’s a much much smaller number than the anti-vaxxers.
There is a bigger number who are vaccinated but the vaccine isn’t enough to protect them: if the vaccines are 95% effective then 5% of the adult population is still vulnerable (or partially so). Speaking as someone who meets a lot of teenagers in the course of my job I’d rather not find out that I was in that 5%.
There is something of a shy BME vote for conservatives in the US as was seen last November, certainly most minorities do still vote Democrat but a fair number did vote for Trump.
I don't think who wins the House next year will threaten US democracy, victory in the House will itself be an exercise of democracy and of course it would require victory in the Senate too for any objections to state votes cast in the EC in the 2024 Presidential election to be upheld
So the representatives of the House and Senate electors of 2022 can overrule the wishes of the 2024 Presidential electors, and therefore all subsequent electors without cause or evidence and that is no threat to democracy? Bonkers I am afraid.
It is a threat to the US as a Presidential system maybe but not to democracy as such no, it would just shift to a more parliamentary democracy with the President ultimately confirmed by the elected Congress
What makes you think the people already openly willing and plotting to steal the 2024 election will allow free and fair elections for the 2026 House or Senate elections? Sorry, but it is just naive to the point of bonkers.
They can think what they want, the US Constitution requires elections to Congress to be held and it would require a party to have won both the House and Senate in an election for a successful challenge to any EC votes cast by a state to be upheld
Doesn't specify how the elections are run though. Which is the point. For example, no requirement to have one polling place per 1000 or whatever.
The big problem is that the system allows for micromanagement of elections and boundaries, by State and local level politicians.
Only a handful of states have equivalents to our Electoral Commission and Boundary Commission, with the result that the politicians in power act in the interests of themselves and their party, rather than primarily in the interest of democracy.
Another Remaniac rejoicing at misfortune. Yes, the UK was too slow to control the border with India - but with 85% of the European Indian diaspora living in the UK, is Hutton suggesting we should have stopped UK Citizens from returning from India? The "Indian" variant would have made its way here anyway - and the only reason we know about it is because of the sequencing the UK does - unlike most countries in Europe (with a handful of honourable exceptions, notably Denmark and Portugal).
As the EU’s vaccination rate accelerates - 600,000 jabs in Italy today - with less exposure to the Indian variant because they didn’t keep their borders open to India desperate for a trade deal, our slavishly jingoistic media falls silent. The damn will break. Truth will out.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
The ethical basis for vaccinating children is an argument that has already happened. We vaccinate against Rubella not so much to protect the people we are vaccinating but to protect their as yet not even conceived children. Likewise we vaccinate all children against HPV primarily to protect against some types of cervical cancer which half of those vaccinated do not have (there are some other cancers caused by HPV, but I think I’m right in saying that cervical cancer is the most significant).
So we are already vaccinating children to protect others.
I suppose part of that does include protecting anti-vaxxers.
Not sure I’m comfortable with telling parents to get their kids vaccinated to protect those not willing to get vaccinated themselves.
Yes, yes, I know there are people who can’t get the vaccine, but it’s a much much smaller number than the anti-vaxxers.
There is a bigger number who are vaccinated but the vaccine isn’t enough to protect them: if the vaccines are 95% effective then 5% of the adult population is still vulnerable (or partially so). Speaking as someone who meets a lot of teenagers in the course of my job I’d rather not find out that I was in that 5%.
Do you want to see the government say "no vaccine, no school"?
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
There is also an ethical point, which is should one be vaccinating people (with the risks, however small, of side effects) not to protect them* but really to protect others?
I have little problem with a shoot to kill policy for armed terrorists, or targeted drone strikes on combatants, but I think the death penalty for criminal justice is abhorrent.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
It's disgusting, and indefensible.
The other thing that winds me up regarding this is just how many pro life politicians in America are in favour of the death penalty. Have a little consistency please.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law an extreme abortion ban, citing "Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."
She has also presided over the state sanctioned killings of six people under Alabama's death penalty law since she assumed office in 2017. That year, she signed the ironically named "Fair Justice Act," an Orwellian edict that cuts short the appeals process for those who have been condemned to die by the state.
The GOP argument would be abortion ends innocent life, the death penalty is punishment for those guilty of murder.
Though the Catholic Church for instance holds all life as sacred and opposes both abortion and the death penalty
How about heresy though? That used to be a capital crime, IIRC.
The Vatican City no longer has the death penalty for heresy or anything else, it was kept for the assassination of the Pope until 1969 but has now even been abolished for that and Pope Francis is a firm opponent of capital punishment
Another Remaniac rejoicing at misfortune. Yes, the UK was too slow to control the border with India - but with 85% of the European Indian diaspora living in the UK, is Hutton suggesting we should have stopped UK Citizens from returning from India? The "Indian" variant would have made its way here anyway - and the only reason we know about it is because of the sequencing the UK does - unlike most countries in Europe (with a handful of honourable exceptions, notably Denmark and Portugal).
As the EU’s vaccination rate accelerates - 600,000 jabs in Italy today - with less exposure to the Indian variant because they didn’t keep their borders open to India desperate for a trade deal, our slavishly jingoistic media falls silent. The damn will break. Truth will out.
Another Remaniac rejoicing at misfortune. Yes, the UK was too slow to control the border with India - but with 85% of the European Indian diaspora living in the UK, is Hutton suggesting we should have stopped UK Citizens from returning from India? The "Indian" variant would have made its way here anyway - and the only reason we know about it is because of the sequencing the UK does - unlike most countries in Europe (with a handful of honourable exceptions, notably Denmark and Portugal).
As the EU’s vaccination rate accelerates - 600,000 jabs in Italy today - with less exposure to the Indian variant because they didn’t keep their borders open to India desperate for a trade deal, our slavishly jingoistic media falls silent. The damn will break. Truth will out.
Also, that the continent has, happily, sped up its vaccinations, is not now news as they sped up some while ago, and is very welcome to boot. It being slow earlier, during a period of high infection, was on the contrary very much news.
On the topic of the death penalty, if it were possible to determine a system whereby only those 100% definitely guilty of the most heinous crimes were to pay with their life for it then I could go either way in thinking that it could be justice.
However that's not humanly possible. Any system humanity could design will always run the risk of errors and miscarriages of justices. So the death penalty is absolutely unacceptable. If a miscarriage of justice leads to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole then even decades later its possible to release them from prison. If they've been executed then they can't be brought back to life.
So no to the death penalty. Not under any circumstances, because humanity can't operate it properly.
There is something of a shy BME vote for conservatives in the US as was seen last November, certainly most minorities do still vote Democrat but a fair number did vote for Trump.
I don't think who wins the House next year will threaten US democracy, victory in the House will itself be an exercise of democracy and of course it would require victory in the Senate too for any objections to state votes cast in the EC in the 2024 Presidential election to be upheld
So the representatives of the House and Senate electors of 2022 can overrule the wishes of the 2024 Presidential electors, and therefore all subsequent electors without cause or evidence and that is no threat to democracy? Bonkers I am afraid.
It is a threat to the US as a Presidential system maybe but not to democracy as such no, it would just shift to a more parliamentary democracy with the President ultimately confirmed by the elected Congress
What makes you think the people already openly willing and plotting to steal the 2024 election will allow free and fair elections for the 2026 House or Senate elections? Sorry, but it is just naive to the point of bonkers.
They can think what they want, the US Constitution requires elections to Congress to be held and it would require a party to have won both the House and Senate in an election for a successful challenge to any EC votes cast by a state to be upheld
Doesn't specify how the elections are run though. Which is the point. For example, no requirement to have one polling place per 1000 or whatever.
The manner of conducting elections to the Federal Congress is determined by the elected state legislatures, with Congress also able to alter the regulations from time to time except for the place Senate elections are held.
Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution is clear though that 'The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States' and the 17th Amendment of the US Constitution is clear that 'The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years.'
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
The ethical basis for vaccinating children is an argument that has already happened. We vaccinate against Rubella not so much to protect the people we are vaccinating but to protect their as yet not even conceived children. Likewise we vaccinate all children against HPV primarily to protect against some types of cervical cancer which half of those vaccinated do not have (there are some other cancers caused by HPV, but I think I’m right in saying that cervical cancer is the most significant).
So we are already vaccinating children to protect others.
I suppose part of that does include protecting anti-vaxxers.
Not sure I’m comfortable with telling parents to get their kids vaccinated to protect those not willing to get vaccinated themselves.
Yes, yes, I know there are people who can’t get the vaccine, but it’s a much much smaller number than the anti-vaxxers.
‘Not sure I’m comfortable with telling parents to get their kids vaccinated to protect those not willing to get vaccinated themselves.‘
I agree with you TLG86. What sort of take up are you going to get from parents where their 12 year olds don’t seem under great COVID threat?
Very strong “data not dates” message from Hancock on Sky: “timing of when we can take that step (4) is the big question. We’re not saying no to 21 June at this point. We’ll keep watching the data for another week”... link between cases/admissions “not as absolute as it once was”....
The upshot this morning: the Govt aren’t saying no to 21 June! They’re proceeding with caution, having been (rightly) criticised for acting too late against the virus in the past.
This is potentially massive too: +40% transmissibility instead of +70% would make all the difference to how bad a wave we have:
Hancock says the latest advice is that Delta is 40% more transmissible - not as bad as some of the estimates of up to 70%! but still something to take very seriously.
Come off it.
Hancock soft-announced the postponement of freedom in our country on a whim.
You know it. We all know it.
The official cave-in to SAGE will come once the government has sniffed the air to see that it is OK.
The next distraction/target from the Johnson regime from freedom is 'vaccinating the world by the end of 2022'
Seriously how much longer are you going to peddle this stuff?
Hospital outbreak in Kanta-Häme, Finland: 80% of 80 people getting Indian variant in a Finnish hospital had received 1st dose of vaccine (40% of patients got infected & 7 died). Less problems among fully vaccinated personnel: vaccines work, after 2nd shot!
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
The ethical basis for vaccinating children is an argument that has already happened. We vaccinate against Rubella not so much to protect the people we are vaccinating but to protect their as yet not even conceived children. Likewise we vaccinate all children against HPV primarily to protect against some types of cervical cancer which half of those vaccinated do not have (there are some other cancers caused by HPV, but I think I’m right in saying that cervical cancer is the most significant).
So we are already vaccinating children to protect others.
I suppose part of that does include protecting anti-vaxxers.
Not sure I’m comfortable with telling parents to get their kids vaccinated to protect those not willing to get vaccinated themselves.
Yes, yes, I know there are people who can’t get the vaccine, but it’s a much much smaller number than the anti-vaxxers.
‘Not sure I’m comfortable with telling parents to get their kids vaccinated to protect those not willing to get vaccinated themselves.‘
I agree with you TLG86. What sort of take up are you going to get from parents where their 12 year olds don’t seem under great COVID threat?
At a guess 60-70%. Which is going to be similar or higher compared to most developed countries adult populations. It will be fine.
Comparison of death rates in kids.from vax vs virus shouldn't be used as the primary comparitor. They're both so vanishingly unlikely vs the (pretty much) known potential long term harms from Covid.
Blair was also very clear that we vaccinate our people first. Nandy saying it’s not an either or...
She is clearly an idiot then because in terms of timing it has to be either/or.
As we are trying to identify the idiots, where do you actually draw line with “our people first?”
With Johnson’s desire to vaccinate the world before end Q4 2022, I suspect big movement from him in next few weeks on the stockpiling UK has been building.
The UK has no choice really, global pandemic we really are all in it together, we need reciprocality on range of other issues too we won’t get if we are responsibility for creating long lasting frustration and anger.
Ask yourself, do you want 12 years olds in UK to get the vaccine before adults in Africa? Your answer has to be no, does it not?
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
The ethical basis for vaccinating children is an argument that has already happened. We vaccinate against Rubella not so much to protect the people we are vaccinating but to protect their as yet not even conceived children. Likewise we vaccinate all children against HPV primarily to protect against some types of cervical cancer which half of those vaccinated do not have (there are some other cancers caused by HPV, but I think I’m right in saying that cervical cancer is the most significant).
So we are already vaccinating children to protect others.
I suppose part of that does include protecting anti-vaxxers.
Not sure I’m comfortable with telling parents to get their kids vaccinated to protect those not willing to get vaccinated themselves.
Yes, yes, I know there are people who can’t get the vaccine, but it’s a much much smaller number than the anti-vaxxers.
There is a bigger number who are vaccinated but the vaccine isn’t enough to protect them: if the vaccines are 95% effective then 5% of the adult population is still vulnerable (or partially so). Speaking as someone who meets a lot of teenagers in the course of my job I’d rather not find out that I was in that 5%.
Do you want to see the government say "no vaccine, no school"?
At the moment vaccinations have a very high take-up without compulsion. I would be very reluctant to change that unless it was unavoidable. It might be a good thing to make vaccinations (against a range of different things perhaps) a condition of employment in a school though.
Another Remaniac rejoicing at misfortune. Yes, the UK was too slow to control the border with India - but with 85% of the European Indian diaspora living in the UK, is Hutton suggesting we should have stopped UK Citizens from returning from India? The "Indian" variant would have made its way here anyway - and the only reason we know about it is because of the sequencing the UK does - unlike most countries in Europe (with a handful of honourable exceptions, notably Denmark and Portugal).
As the EU’s vaccination rate accelerates - 600,000 jabs in Italy today - with less exposure to the Indian variant because they didn’t keep their borders open to India desperate for a trade deal, our slavishly jingoistic media falls silent. The damn will break. Truth will out.
Very strong “data not dates” message from Hancock on Sky: “timing of when we can take that step (4) is the big question. We’re not saying no to 21 June at this point. We’ll keep watching the data for another week”... link between cases/admissions “not as absolute as it once was”....
The upshot this morning: the Govt aren’t saying no to 21 June! They’re proceeding with caution, having been (rightly) criticised for acting too late against the virus in the past.
This is potentially massive too: +40% transmissibility instead of +70% would make all the difference to how bad a wave we have:
Hancock says the latest advice is that Delta is 40% more transmissible - not as bad as some of the estimates of up to 70%! but still something to take very seriously.
Come off it.
Hancock soft-announced the postponement of freedom in our country on a whim.
You know it. We all know it.
The official cave-in to SAGE will come once the government has sniffed the air to see that it is OK.
The next distraction/target from the Johnson regime from freedom is 'vaccinating the world by the end of 2022'
Seriously how much longer are you going to peddle this stuff?
On the topic of the death penalty, if it were possible to determine a system whereby only those 100% definitely guilty of the most heinous crimes were to pay with their life for it then I could go either way in thinking that it could be justice.
However that's not humanly possible. Any system humanity could design will always run the risk of errors and miscarriages of justices. So the death penalty is absolutely unacceptable. If a miscarriage of justice leads to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole then even decades later its possible to release them from prison. If they've been executed then they can't be brought back to life.
So no to the death penalty. Not under any circumstances, because humanity can't operate it properly.
To me, it's more that the whole thing is pretty ritualistic and more trouble than it's worth, at least in peacetime. Even when we had capital punishment, the vast majority of death sentences were commuted. One could aruge endlessly about which murderer deserves to hang, and which deserves life imprisonment.
I have no issue though, with executing spies, traitors, francs-tireurs in wartime conditions. Or people guilty of serious war crimes.
Blair was also very clear that we vaccinate our people first. Nandy saying it’s not an either or...
She is clearly an idiot then because in terms of timing it has to be either/or.
As we are trying to identify the idiots, where do you actually draw line with “our people first?”
With Johnson’s desire to vaccinate the world before end Q4 2022, I suspect big movement from him in next few weeks on the stockpiling UK has been building.
The UK has no choice really, global pandemic we really are all in it together, we need reciprocality on range of other issues too we won’t get if we are responsibility for creating long lasting frustration and anger.
Ask yourself, do you want 12 years olds in UK to get the vaccine before adults in Africa? Your answer has to be no, does it not?
My answer is yes.
The sooner we can get back to normal, the sooner we can live our lives, the more we can have a healthy economy, the less furlough cash needed, the more taxes generated, the more we can afford to give aid to Africa, the more vaccines etc we can pay for in Africa, the more Africans vaccinated by us.
There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the UK remaining locked down.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
Blair’s interview was a total car crash, not leaking of a Liberal Conservative policy.
The Blair Trust? What a brain dead dry right wing think tank piece of junk that is.
“Tony Blair has defended his institute’s proposal to allow people who have been fully vaccinated extra freedoms.”
The only obvious place such thinking will go is spotlight the unvaccinated - the unclean - who will end up wearing bright yellow COVID badges in public, and get blamed for everything that goes wrong.
Blair is showing just how stupid and reactionary he is these days, no one on PB brain’s trust is going to support him on this discriminating policy?
Blair was also very clear that we vaccinate our people first. Nandy saying it’s not an either or...
She is clearly an idiot then because in terms of timing it has to be either/or.
As we are trying to identify the idiots, where do you actually draw line with “our people first?”
With Johnson’s desire to vaccinate the world before end Q4 2022, I suspect big movement from him in next few weeks on the stockpiling UK has been building.
The UK has no choice really, global pandemic we really are all in it together, we need reciprocality on range of other issues too we won’t get if we are responsibility for creating long lasting frustration and anger.
Ask yourself, do you want 12 years olds in UK to get the vaccine before adults in Africa? Your answer has to be no, does it not?
Why does it have to be no? A government's first responsibility is to ensure the safety of its own people. Having done so, it can then give aid to other nations.
Blair was also very clear that we vaccinate our people first. Nandy saying it’s not an either or...
She is clearly an idiot then because in terms of timing it has to be either/or.
As we are trying to identify the idiots, where do you actually draw line with “our people first?”
With Johnson’s desire to vaccinate the world before end Q4 2022, I suspect big movement from him in next few weeks on the stockpiling UK has been building.
The UK has no choice really, global pandemic we really are all in it together, we need reciprocality on range of other issues too we won’t get if we are responsibility for creating long lasting frustration and anger.
Ask yourself, do you want 12 years olds in UK to get the vaccine before adults in Africa? Your answer has to be no, does it not?
Didn't you predict that the government would give away all the vaccines to the third world after over 50s had received their first dose ?
Very strong “data not dates” message from Hancock on Sky: “timing of when we can take that step (4) is the big question. We’re not saying no to 21 June at this point. We’ll keep watching the data for another week”... link between cases/admissions “not as absolute as it once was”....
The upshot this morning: the Govt aren’t saying no to 21 June! They’re proceeding with caution, having been (rightly) criticised for acting too late against the virus in the past.
This is potentially massive too: +40% transmissibility instead of +70% would make all the difference to how bad a wave we have:
Hancock says the latest advice is that Delta is 40% more transmissible - not as bad as some of the estimates of up to 70%! but still something to take very seriously.
I still expect 21st June to be on. Lots of caveats around it about responsibility to not be a dickhead. But from 21st June, fighting Covid will move from being a government task to a personal one. Get jabbed, twice. Get a booster when offered. Apart from that, go get your lives back.
I have little problem with a shoot to kill policy for armed terrorists, or targeted drone strikes on combatants, but I think the death penalty for criminal justice is abhorrent.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
It's disgusting, and indefensible.
The other thing that winds me up regarding this is just how many pro life politicians in America are in favour of the death penalty. Have a little consistency please.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law an extreme abortion ban, citing "Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."
She has also presided over the state sanctioned killings of six people under Alabama's death penalty law since she assumed office in 2017. That year, she signed the ironically named "Fair Justice Act," an Orwellian edict that cuts short the appeals process for those who have been condemned to die by the state.
The GOP argument would be abortion ends innocent life, the death penalty is punishment for those guilty of murder.
Though the Catholic Church for instance holds all life as sacred and opposes both abortion and the death penalty
How about heresy though? That used to be a capital crime, IIRC.
The Vatican City no longer has the death penalty for heresy or anything else, it was kept for the assassination of the Pope until 1969 but has now even been abolished for that and Pope Francis is a firm opponent of capital punishment
I remember watching Borgia (the Canal version) where a man is sawn in half lengthways, for attempting to murder the Pope.
On the topic of the death penalty, if it were possible to determine a system whereby only those 100% definitely guilty of the most heinous crimes were to pay with their life for it then I could go either way in thinking that it could be justice.
However that's not humanly possible. Any system humanity could design will always run the risk of errors and miscarriages of justices. So the death penalty is absolutely unacceptable. If a miscarriage of justice leads to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole then even decades later its possible to release them from prison. If they've been executed then they can't be brought back to life.
So no to the death penalty. Not under any circumstances, because humanity can't operate it properly.
As long as there are restrictions on our lives, then the government has to use every vaccine it has in this country. Once the restrictions are gone, then the government can do what it wants as far as I'm concerned.
On the topic of the death penalty, if it were possible to determine a system whereby only those 100% definitely guilty of the most heinous crimes were to pay with their life for it then I could go either way in thinking that it could be justice.
However that's not humanly possible. Any system humanity could design will always run the risk of errors and miscarriages of justices. So the death penalty is absolutely unacceptable. If a miscarriage of justice leads to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole then even decades later its possible to release them from prison. If they've been executed then they can't be brought back to life.
So no to the death penalty. Not under any circumstances, because humanity can't operate it properly.
Same with socialism.
Socialism even if fully implemented in line with the theory would still be a disaster, with most businesses run by the state and most property owned by the state and no incentive
Another Remaniac rejoicing at misfortune. Yes, the UK was too slow to control the border with India - but with 85% of the European Indian diaspora living in the UK, is Hutton suggesting we should have stopped UK Citizens from returning from India? The "Indian" variant would have made its way here anyway - and the only reason we know about it is because of the sequencing the UK does - unlike most countries in Europe (with a handful of honourable exceptions, notably Denmark and Portugal).
As the EU’s vaccination rate accelerates - 600,000 jabs in Italy today - with less exposure to the Indian variant because they didn’t keep their borders open to India desperate for a trade deal, our slavishly jingoistic media falls silent. The damn will break. Truth will out.
What Indian variant will do in countries with a much higher number of anti-vaxxers is something Hutton might like to consider.
If those countries haven't Brexited, he won't give a shiny shit about them.....
Further waves of covid ripping through Europe later this year because only half the people have chosen to be vaccinated would be in deep contrast to this country.
Very strong “data not dates” message from Hancock on Sky: “timing of when we can take that step (4) is the big question. We’re not saying no to 21 June at this point. We’ll keep watching the data for another week”... link between cases/admissions “not as absolute as it once was”....
The upshot this morning: the Govt aren’t saying no to 21 June! They’re proceeding with caution, having been (rightly) criticised for acting too late against the virus in the past.
This is potentially massive too: +40% transmissibility instead of +70% would make all the difference to how bad a wave we have:
Hancock says the latest advice is that Delta is 40% more transmissible - not as bad as some of the estimates of up to 70%! but still something to take very seriously.
Come off it.
Hancock soft-announced the postponement of freedom in our country on a whim.
You know it. We all know it.
The official cave-in to SAGE will come once the government has sniffed the air to see that it is OK.
The next distraction/target from the Johnson regime from freedom is 'vaccinating the world by the end of 2022'
Seriously how much longer are you going to peddle this stuff?
You told us the pubs wouldn't open.
Hancock also soft confirmed today that the working from home directive and face mask mandates will continue long term.
long term.
No way are your vaccinations buying you complete freedom.
SAGE has won again. And wait til the autumn. Goodness. More lockdowns when cases explode. Furlough for ever.
The only thing that ever stops this, EVER is backing people and parties that are agitating for your freedom.
I have little problem with a shoot to kill policy for armed terrorists, or targeted drone strikes on combatants, but I think the death penalty for criminal justice is abhorrent.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
It's disgusting, and indefensible.
The other thing that winds me up regarding this is just how many pro life politicians in America are in favour of the death penalty. Have a little consistency please.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law an extreme abortion ban, citing "Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."
She has also presided over the state sanctioned killings of six people under Alabama's death penalty law since she assumed office in 2017. That year, she signed the ironically named "Fair Justice Act," an Orwellian edict that cuts short the appeals process for those who have been condemned to die by the state.
The GOP argument would be abortion ends innocent life, the death penalty is punishment for those guilty of murder.
Though the Catholic Church for instance holds all life as sacred and opposes both abortion and the death penalty
How about heresy though? That used to be a capital crime, IIRC.
The Vatican City no longer has the death penalty for heresy or anything else, it was kept for the assassination of the Pope until 1969 but has now even been abolished for that and Pope Francis is a firm opponent of capital punishment
I remember watching Borgia (the Canal version) where a man is sawn in half lengthways, for attempting to murder the Pope.
Very strong “data not dates” message from Hancock on Sky: “timing of when we can take that step (4) is the big question. We’re not saying no to 21 June at this point. We’ll keep watching the data for another week”... link between cases/admissions “not as absolute as it once was”....
The upshot this morning: the Govt aren’t saying no to 21 June! They’re proceeding with caution, having been (rightly) criticised for acting too late against the virus in the past.
This is potentially massive too: +40% transmissibility instead of +70% would make all the difference to how bad a wave we have:
Hancock says the latest advice is that Delta is 40% more transmissible - not as bad as some of the estimates of up to 70%! but still something to take very seriously.
Come off it.
Hancock soft-announced the postponement of freedom in our country on a whim.
You know it. We all know it.
The official cave-in to SAGE will come once the government has sniffed the air to see that it is OK.
The next distraction/target from the Johnson regime from freedom is 'vaccinating the world by the end of 2022'
Seriously how much longer are you going to peddle this stuff?
You told us the pubs wouldn't open.
The only thing that ever stops this, EVER is backing people and parties that are agitating for your freedom.
Very strong “data not dates” message from Hancock on Sky: “timing of when we can take that step (4) is the big question. We’re not saying no to 21 June at this point. We’ll keep watching the data for another week”... link between cases/admissions “not as absolute as it once was”....
The upshot this morning: the Govt aren’t saying no to 21 June! They’re proceeding with caution, having been (rightly) criticised for acting too late against the virus in the past.
This is potentially massive too: +40% transmissibility instead of +70% would make all the difference to how bad a wave we have:
Hancock says the latest advice is that Delta is 40% more transmissible - not as bad as some of the estimates of up to 70%! but still something to take very seriously.
Come off it.
Hancock soft-announced the postponement of freedom in our country on a whim.
You know it. We all know it.
The official cave-in to SAGE will come once the government has sniffed the air to see that it is OK.
The next distraction/target from the Johnson regime from freedom is 'vaccinating the world by the end of 2022'
Seriously how much longer are you going to peddle this stuff?
You told us the pubs wouldn't open.
Hancock also soft confirmed today that the working from home directive and face mask mandates will continue long term.
long term.
No way are your vaccinations buying you complete freedom.
SAGE has won again. And wait til the autumn. Goodness. More lockdowns when cases explode. Furlough for ever.
The only thing that ever stops this, EVER is backing people and parties that are agitating for your freedom.
You told us the pubs wouldn't open.
You were wrong and have been continually wrong.
You need to get off the internet and go and spend some time in the real world.
Where people are going to each others homes, going to work, going to pubs, going to restaurants, going to gyms, going to sports matches.
I have little problem with a shoot to kill policy for armed terrorists, or targeted drone strikes on combatants, but I think the death penalty for criminal justice is abhorrent.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
It's disgusting, and indefensible.
The other thing that winds me up regarding this is just how many pro life politicians in America are in favour of the death penalty. Have a little consistency please.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law an extreme abortion ban, citing "Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."
She has also presided over the state sanctioned killings of six people under Alabama's death penalty law since she assumed office in 2017. That year, she signed the ironically named "Fair Justice Act," an Orwellian edict that cuts short the appeals process for those who have been condemned to die by the state.
The GOP argument would be abortion ends innocent life, the death penalty is punishment for those guilty of murder.
Though the Catholic Church for instance holds all life as sacred and opposes both abortion and the death penalty
How about heresy though? That used to be a capital crime, IIRC.
The Vatican City no longer has the death penalty for heresy or anything else, it was kept for the assassination of the Pope until 1969 but has now even been abolished for that and Pope Francis is a firm opponent of capital punishment
I remember watching Borgia (the Canal version) where a man is sawn in half lengthways, for attempting to murder the Pope.
Which end did they start on ?
He was hung up by his legs, and they started at the crotch. Apparently, you remain alive and conscious for quite some time, as plenty of blood flows to the brain.
Come to think of it, wasn't Amazon notorious for not making a profit – after aggressive reinvestment?
That was my thought when I saw the threshold - whether it would actually be financially optimal for companies to reduce their profits below the threshold, compared to making more and paying the tax? That you can massage the profit figure downwards makes the risks worse.
The Italians have a saying for it - "Fatta la legge. Trovato l'inganno".
(As soon as a law is passed, loopholes are found.)
Anyway, I see from today's Times that Dido Harding wants to become Head of the NHS. FFS!
Also for @Leon, I second @NickPalmer's recommendation of Outlander - ("You might actually like Outlander 1-2 (Netflix, which I caught up with recently) - basically about historical romp around the Scottish clans, Bonnie Prince Charlie etc. Because it's got a plucky heroine and a dashing highlander, it was initially written off as Mills & Boon stuff, but it cheerfully through time travel, fantasy, satire, brutality, and some really good acting into the mix, and it's really very good. Try a couple of installments to get the flavour.")
I've only just started it - Daughter has been learning Gaelic during lockdown so she wanted to hear it spoken - but am really enjoying it. It is very well acted, draws you into the story and has also made me interested in Scottish history for that period about which I don't know much.
In other news am taking said Daughter for a spa day in Keswick later for her day off, a much delayed Xmas present from 2019. Mud baths, massages, facials etc - the lot. We - well her, certainly - will look very fetching should any dashing highlanders be around.
Have a fun day all.
Outlander should be banned.
You used to be able to troll up to Glenbrittle campsite on Skye for a week and share the midge infested swamp with a few other climbers and nutters. Peace and quiet except for the haunting sound of the Black-throated divers in the distance and the patter of rain on your tent.
Now there's hundreds of idiots turning up (pre- pandemic, at least) who seem to think that passing places are for parking in and thus end up blocking the glen from one end to the other.
All because a daft TV programme featured a couple of small waterfalls of the type you can find anywhere in Scotland (admittedly missing Waterpipe Gully as the background, but still).
Ugh. Visiting the Cuillin Hills will never be the same again.
Very strong “data not dates” message from Hancock on Sky: “timing of when we can take that step (4) is the big question. We’re not saying no to 21 June at this point. We’ll keep watching the data for another week”... link between cases/admissions “not as absolute as it once was”....
The upshot this morning: the Govt aren’t saying no to 21 June! They’re proceeding with caution, having been (rightly) criticised for acting too late against the virus in the past.
This is potentially massive too: +40% transmissibility instead of +70% would make all the difference to how bad a wave we have:
Hancock says the latest advice is that Delta is 40% more transmissible - not as bad as some of the estimates of up to 70%! but still something to take very seriously.
Come off it.
Hancock soft-announced the postponement of freedom in our country on a whim.
You know it. We all know it.
The official cave-in to SAGE will come once the government has sniffed the air to see that it is OK.
The next distraction/target from the Johnson regime from freedom is 'vaccinating the world by the end of 2022'
Seriously how much longer are you going to peddle this stuff?
I'm not worried, because I know we're going to be locked down forever anyway. That's what a clever chap on the internet told me and that's why Stage 1 of unlocking didn't happen on 29 March, Stage 2 didn't happen on 12 April, Stage 3 didn't happen on 17 May, and obviously Stage 4 is never going to happen...
Possibly the most comprehensive and balanced piece on the corporation tax discussions, from Kate Andrews at the Spectator. (despite the headline in the link).
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Andrew Wakefield and his mob love you.
We've been vaccinating kids for decades.
Isn’t the issue that we haven’t tested these on kids yet? Presumably you wouldn’t let an under 12 have Pfizer as it hasn’t been approved for them.
There are trials ongoing in children under 12 (for a couple of months, now). You're right in thinking that it's probably best to wait for the outcome of these, since optimum dosages (alongt other stuff like potential interaction with other childhood vaccines) might well be different. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01061-4
The Pfizer vaccine is, of course, already approved for those over 12, and is quite safe.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
I agree much of the money is just squandered by handing it out to organisations and dodgy governments just to meet targets. Projects at minimum should be jointly run by UK teams to ensure the money is going to where it is supposed to be and helping poor people , not despots , army , police , crooks, etc.
Agreed. It’s urgent they find a way to bypass such people, and give the money direct to those places in Scotland where it’s needed.
Come to think of it, wasn't Amazon notorious for not making a profit – after aggressive reinvestment?
That was my thought when I saw the threshold - whether it would actually be financially optimal for companies to reduce their profits below the threshold, compared to making more and paying the tax? That you can massage the profit figure downwards makes the risks worse.
The Italians have a saying for it - "Fatta la legge. Trovato l'inganno".
(As soon as a law is passed, loopholes are found.)
Anyway, I see from today's Times that Dido Harding wants to become Head of the NHS. FFS!
Also for @Leon, I second @NickPalmer's recommendation of Outlander - ("You might actually like Outlander 1-2 (Netflix, which I caught up with recently) - basically about historical romp around the Scottish clans, Bonnie Prince Charlie etc. Because it's got a plucky heroine and a dashing highlander, it was initially written off as Mills & Boon stuff, but it cheerfully through time travel, fantasy, satire, brutality, and some really good acting into the mix, and it's really very good. Try a couple of installments to get the flavour.")
I've only just started it - Daughter has been learning Gaelic during lockdown so she wanted to hear it spoken - but am really enjoying it. It is very well acted, draws you into the story and has also made me interested in Scottish history for that period about which I don't know much.
In other news am taking said Daughter for a spa day in Keswick later for her day off, a much delayed Xmas present from 2019. Mud baths, massages, facials etc - the lot. We - well her, certainly - will look very fetching should any dashing highlanders be around.
Have a fun day all.
Outlander should be banned.
You used to be able to troll up to Glenbrittle campsite on Skye for a week and share the midge infested swamp with a few other climbers and nutters. Peace and quiet except for the haunting sound of the Black-throated divers in the distance and the patter of rain on your tent.
Now there's hundreds of idiots turning up (pre- pandemic, at least) who seem to think that passing places are for parking in and thus end up blocking the glen from one end to the other.
All because a daft TV programme featured a couple of small waterfalls of the type you can find anywhere in Scotland (admittedly missing Waterpipe Gully as the background, but still).
Ugh. Visiting the Cuillin Hills will never be the same again.
Come to think of it, wasn't Amazon notorious for not making a profit – after aggressive reinvestment?
That was my thought when I saw the threshold - whether it would actually be financially optimal for companies to reduce their profits below the threshold, compared to making more and paying the tax? That you can massage the profit figure downwards makes the risks worse.
The Italians have a saying for it - "Fatta la legge. Trovato l'inganno".
(As soon as a law is passed, loopholes are found.)
Anyway, I see from today's Times that Dido Harding wants to become Head of the NHS. FFS!
Also for @Leon, I second @NickPalmer's recommendation of Outlander - ("You might actually like Outlander 1-2 (Netflix, which I caught up with recently) - basically about historical romp around the Scottish clans, Bonnie Prince Charlie etc. Because it's got a plucky heroine and a dashing highlander, it was initially written off as Mills & Boon stuff, but it cheerfully through time travel, fantasy, satire, brutality, and some really good acting into the mix, and it's really very good. Try a couple of installments to get the flavour.")
I've only just started it - Daughter has been learning Gaelic during lockdown so she wanted to hear it spoken - but am really enjoying it. It is very well acted, draws you into the story and has also made me interested in Scottish history for that period about which I don't know much.
In other news am taking said Daughter for a spa day in Keswick later for her day off, a much delayed Xmas present from 2019. Mud baths, massages, facials etc - the lot. We - well her, certainly - will look very fetching should any dashing highlanders be around.
Have a fun day all.
Outlander should be banned.
You used to be able to troll up to Glenbrittle campsite on Skye for a week and share the midge infested swamp with a few other climbers and nutters. Peace and quiet except for the haunting sound of the Black-throated divers in the distance and the patter of rain on your tent.
Now there's hundreds of idiots turning up (pre- pandemic, at least) who seem to think that passing places are for parking in and thus end up blocking the glen from one end to the other.
All because a daft TV programme featured a couple of small waterfalls of the type you can find anywhere in Scotland (admittedly missing Waterpipe Gully as the background, but still).
Ugh. Visiting the Cuillin Hills will never be the same again.
/rant
I hope that it doesn't end up with the devastation wrought by The Beach on it's featured... beach.
Howard Beckett @BeckettUnite If you behave like a Tory, we will treat you like a Tory. Night all.
God what a tosser, bar anything else 40% of his electorate (Unite members) voted Conservative last election, with the number likely having risen since.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
Foreign aid should be a matter of individual choice through charitable contributions. We gain nothing from having the government borrow money from our grandchildren to send abroad on our behalf.
Well that’s objectively not true thanks to Mitchell’s work.
For example funding secondary education for young girls in East Africa is the programme that has had the biggest single impact on combatting radicalism in the area. (The theory is that educated women + microfinance = small businesses. These lead to a stake in society and give them the freedom to choose their partners. And funnily enough they would rather pair up with stable productive members of society than radicals. And young men are smart enough to realise that if they want sex then they need to smarten up their act…)
Even if the theory works in reality (and most aid ones don't), why can that not be done through individual charitable contributions if people think that is to their benefit?
Why do we have to be forced by the government to squander money we don't have?
For the same reason that governments build roads, schools and hospitals. There are some things that are better done collectively
Yes, and you haven't produced any evidence that that's the case with development aid. But it's very impressive how you treat your airy assertion as a proven fact.
But it’s very impressive the way that you dismiss a thoughtful argument with “well even it it works in reality” rather than engaging with the excellent work that has been done in the last decade precisely to make sure it works in reality!
Thanks. I'm professionally familiar with the large volume of academic literature that shows how little most development aid achieves, even where the outcomes aren't perverse.
It does create lots of highly paid jobs for Hooray Henry and Henrietta's though.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Andrew Wakefield and his mob love you.
We've been vaccinating kids for decades.
Isn’t the issue that we haven’t tested these on kids yet? Presumably you wouldn’t let an under 12 have Pfizer as it hasn’t been approved for them.
There are trials ongoing in children under 12 (for a couple of months, now). You're right in thinking that it's probably best to wait for the outcome of these, since optimum dosages (alongt other stuff like potential interaction with other childhood vaccines) might well be different. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01061-4
The Pfizer vaccine is, of course, already approved for those over 12, and is quite safe.
IIRC the usage approval for 12+ Pfizer is under consideration now.
The attitude of the children themselves has not been mentioned. My daughters would become eligible and both want it. They understand the idea of herd immunity - so they want to vaccinate s part of the countrywide effort and realise that it offers a very small advantage for themselves.
I understand their friends have similar attitudes. Apparently anti-vax is as popular as being a racist in their peer groups - and they see turning down the vaccine as anti-vax.
"American author Naomi Wolf has been suspended from Twitter after spreading vaccine misinformation. Dr Wolf, well known for her acclaimed third-wave feminist book The Beauty Myth, posted a wide-range of unfounded theories about vaccines. One tweet claimed that vaccines were a "software platform that can receive uploads". She also compared Dr Anthony Fauci, the top Covid adviser in the US, to "Satan" to her more than 140,000 followers. Most recently, she tweeted that the urine and faeces of people who had received the jab needed to be separated from general sewage supplies while tests were done to measure its impact on non-vaccinated people through drinking water."
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Andrew Wakefield and his mob love you.
We've been vaccinating kids for decades.
Isn’t the issue that we haven’t tested these on kids yet? Presumably you wouldn’t let an under 12 have Pfizer as it hasn’t been approved for them.
There are trials ongoing in children under 12 (for a couple of months, now). You're right in thinking that it's probably best to wait for the outcome of these, since optimum dosages (alongt other stuff like potential interaction with other childhood vaccines) might well be different. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01061-4
The Pfizer vaccine is, of course, already approved for those over 12, and is quite safe.
IIRC the usage approval for 12+ Pfizer is under consideration now.
The attitude of the children themselves has not been mentioned. My daughters would become eligible and both want it. They understand the idea of herd immunity - so they want to vaccinate s part of the countrywide effort and realise that it offers a very small advantage for themselves.
I understand their friends have similar attitudes. Apparently anti-vax is as popular as being a racist in their peer groups - and they see turning down the vaccine as anti-vax.
12+ is approved already, in UK, USA, UAE and Israel.
They’re doing a clinical trial on primary school kids in the US at the moment.
Good on your daughters, obviously brought up well!
Someone needs to do a study on the interaction between social media and the mental states of older people. Trump is the most famous example, but what about Gulliani? It either uncovers inner.... issues. Or it creates them.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Andrew Wakefield and his mob love you.
We've been vaccinating kids for decades.
Isn’t the issue that we haven’t tested these on kids yet? Presumably you wouldn’t let an under 12 have Pfizer as it hasn’t been approved for them.
There are trials ongoing in children under 12 (for a couple of months, now). You're right in thinking that it's probably best to wait for the outcome of these, since optimum dosages (alongt other stuff like potential interaction with other childhood vaccines) might well be different. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01061-4
The Pfizer vaccine is, of course, already approved for those over 12, and is quite safe.
IIRC the usage approval for 12+ Pfizer is under consideration now.
The attitude of the children themselves has not been mentioned. My daughters would become eligible and both want it. They understand the idea of herd immunity - so they want to vaccinate s part of the countrywide effort and realise that it offers a very small advantage for themselves.
I understand their friends have similar attitudes. Apparently anti-vax is as popular as being a racist in their peer groups - and they see turning down the vaccine as anti-vax.
12+ is approved already, in UK, USA, UAE and Israel.
They’re doing a clinical trial on primary school kids in the US at the moment.
Good on your daughters, obviously brought up well!
Yes - medically approved here. The next step (currently under consideration) is whether to add 12+ to the national vaccination campaign, and when.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
Every year I donate to an MND charity, as the horrible disease took our daughter away. Seven years ago now.
I’ve just been told that a good friend has been diagnosed with MND. It doesn’t compare with your loss but it’s remarkable how one’s attitude to a disease changes when it comes close to home.
On the topic of the death penalty, if it were possible to determine a system whereby only those 100% definitely guilty of the most heinous crimes were to pay with their life for it then I could go either way in thinking that it could be justice.
However that's not humanly possible. Any system humanity could design will always run the risk of errors and miscarriages of justices. So the death penalty is absolutely unacceptable. If a miscarriage of justice leads to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole then even decades later its possible to release them from prison. If they've been executed then they can't be brought back to life.
So no to the death penalty. Not under any circumstances, because humanity can't operate it properly.
It is possible. For example, some terrorists are completely open about their attacks, how they planned them, carried them out, etc. Provided they're not suffering from any mental illnesses, there's no doubt about their guilt.
Another Remaniac rejoicing at misfortune. Yes, the UK was too slow to control the border with India - but with 85% of the European Indian diaspora living in the UK, is Hutton suggesting we should have stopped UK Citizens from returning from India? The "Indian" variant would have made its way here anyway - and the only reason we know about it is because of the sequencing the UK does - unlike most countries in Europe (with a handful of honourable exceptions, notably Denmark and Portugal).
As the EU’s vaccination rate accelerates - 600,000 jabs in Italy today - with less exposure to the Indian variant because they didn’t keep their borders open to India desperate for a trade deal, our slavishly jingoistic media falls silent. The damn will break. Truth will out.
Another Remaniac rejoicing at misfortune. Yes, the UK was too slow to control the border with India - but with 85% of the European Indian diaspora living in the UK, is Hutton suggesting we should have stopped UK Citizens from returning from India? The "Indian" variant would have made its way here anyway - and the only reason we know about it is because of the sequencing the UK does - unlike most countries in Europe (with a handful of honourable exceptions, notably Denmark and Portugal).
As the EU’s vaccination rate accelerates - 600,000 jabs in Italy today - with less exposure to the Indian variant because they didn’t keep their borders open to India desperate for a trade deal, our slavishly jingoistic media falls silent. The damn will break. Truth will out.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
I’ve very much done the same - my Dad was a pioneer of what today is called venture philanthropy and we’ve tried to continue his legacy
Agreed.
It works if lots of people with links follow those links - for me that's diabetic, or local, charities, amongst others.
If my mum's probate finally emerges from the family court, my plan is to try and find a reasonably substantial donation to a local charity for part of a Covid recovery worker for a year for the local parish.
Admin, admin...
Send me a PM if you want and I can ask the team if they are working with any charities in your area. This is what we did in April for example
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
There is also an ethical point, which is should one be vaccinating people (with the risks, however small, of side effects) not to protect them* but really to protect others?
*look at the statistics
I suspect that that is a matter of fact and degree.
And that the case has been argued many times over the last century.
Comments
Whatever one thinks of Tony Blair, he does tend to take a position on this sort of thing. He was very clear that we should vaccinate children.
Interestingly, Nandy now saying we should vaccinate children.
We've been vaccinating kids for decades.
I don't think who wins the House next year will threaten US democracy, victory in the House will itself be an exercise of democracy and of course it would require victory in the Senate too for any objections to state votes cast in the EC in the 2024 Presidential election to be upheld
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-testing-drive-ahead-of-return-to-schools-next-week
Erm, rather short notice. Has Gavin Williamson only just learnt how to work a calendar?
We really don’t want asymptomatic infectious kids running around schools in September, when some of them live with vulnerable parents and grandparents who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons.
Even if I didn't 5-10% of the time the State will get it wrong, and literally murder an innocent civilian.
It's disgusting, and indefensible.
It would also require a party to have been elected to majority control of both the House and Senate to be able to successfully object to the casting of a state's electoral college votes
If you haven't been vaccinated you get test on arrival and stay home until your day 7 test comes back negative.
I think it's a good way of encouraging vaccination.
Frankly no one should be travelling to a Red List country - and if they have sufficiently compelling reasons to do so, can spend the 14 days in quarantine until they get their negative test.
Note Guernsey does not require pre-arrival COVID testing.
If you’d ant see a difference between the two you need to step back and reconsider. You may reach the same conclusion but at least you’ll have applied some intelligence rather than reaching you for oh so clever but really quite dim witted put down. This is nothing to do with Wakefield.
I can't help but think that many of the 'anti-woke' brigade would be horrified at some of those you are giving grants to; e.g. those promoting black leadership, mental health for Muslims, fighting for gender equality, and several others - quite right-on, PC, identity causes. Good on you.
Achieving the percentage becomes the be all and end all, and the yardstick by which your success is measured. Nothing else matters.
I had similar concerns with defining "ending" child poverty by those households who were just the right side of the line of 60% of average income under Gordon Brown.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law an extreme abortion ban, citing "Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."
She has also presided over the state sanctioned killings of six people under Alabama's death penalty law since she assumed office in 2017. That year, she signed the ironically named "Fair Justice Act," an Orwellian edict that cuts short the appeals process for those who have been condemned to die by the state.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/16/opinions/alabama-kay-ivey-hypocrisy-parini/index.html
The answer, given the damage covid has caused to society, and is still causing, including to children and their education is clearly it is fine though.
I've had this ethical discussion with several people over the past few months, I'm quite well versed in this subject given my father's former job and small role in the vaccine roll out.
As a parent, it is something I've been aware of for months, especially with the regular bouts of self isolation they've had to endure.
Though the Catholic Church for instance holds all life as sacred and opposes both abortion and the death penalty
So we are already vaccinating children to protect others.
Britain has become the world’s most sophisticated laboratory for the virus’s evolution, with 60 percent of England’s coronavirus cases being analyzed through genomic sequencing. That has allowed the country to pick up on the earliest signs of dangerous variants, and made Britain a harbinger of the challenges facing even heavily vaccinated nations as newer versions of the virus reach the unvaccinated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/world/europe/us-covid-vaccines.html
(As soon as a law is passed, loopholes are found.)
Anyway, I see from today's Times that Dido Harding wants to become Head of the NHS. FFS!
Also for @Leon, I second @NickPalmer's recommendation of Outlander -
("You might actually like Outlander 1-2 (Netflix, which I caught up with recently) - basically about historical romp around the Scottish clans, Bonnie Prince Charlie etc. Because it's got a plucky heroine and a dashing highlander, it was initially written off as Mills & Boon stuff, but it cheerfully through time travel, fantasy, satire, brutality, and some really good acting into the mix, and it's really very good. Try a couple of installments to get the flavour.")
I've only just started it - Daughter has been learning Gaelic during lockdown so she wanted to hear it spoken - but am really enjoying it. It is very well acted, draws you into the story and has also made me interested in Scottish history for that period about which I don't know much.
In other news am taking said Daughter for a spa day in Keswick later for her day off, a much delayed Xmas present from 2019. Mud baths, massages, facials etc - the lot. We - well her, certainly - will look very fetching should any dashing highlanders be around.
Have a fun day all.
You don’t need a calendar, you need a clock.
The risk delta between 13-17 year olds and 18-24 year olds is minimal.
Given that 6,000+ children have already been hospitalised with covid in this country with about a third of them exposed so far, then refraining from vaxing them means deliberately choosing to hospitalise over 10,000 more children.
And hospitalised covid patients have far too high a rate of organ damage going forwards.
There is no way that side effects will have anywhere near that effect. The current risk balance calculations factor in a very small risk of exposure to the virus; if we unlock without herd immunity, everyone will see the virus sooner or later.
And Long Covid is a thing; the ONS found a significant fraction of those who were infected in the first wave showing symptoms over a year afterwards.
So I think they should be vaxxed to protect themselves. That very few end up being so sick that we can’t save their lives with medical intervention and intensive care doesn’t mean they’re unaffected. As a parent, kids being hospitalised does not equal “unaffected” to me.
Not sure I’m comfortable with telling parents to get their kids vaccinated to protect those not willing to get vaccinated themselves.
Yes, yes, I know there are people who can’t get the vaccine, but it’s a much much smaller number than the anti-vaxxers.
The upshot this morning: the Govt aren’t saying no to 21 June! They’re proceeding with caution, having been (rightly) criticised for acting too late against the virus in the past.
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1401443614715219969?s=20
Hancock says the latest advice is that Delta is 40% more transmissible - not as bad as some of the estimates of up to 70%! but still something to take very seriously.
Only a handful of states have equivalents to our Electoral Commission and Boundary Commission, with the result that the politicians in power act in the interests of themselves and their party, rather than primarily in the interest of democracy.
As the EU’s vaccination rate accelerates - 600,000 jabs in Italy today - with less exposure to the Indian variant because they didn’t keep their borders open to India desperate for a trade deal, our slavishly jingoistic media falls silent. The damn will break. Truth will out.
https://twitter.com/williamnhutton/status/1401288286719590400?s=20
However that's not humanly possible. Any system humanity could design will always run the risk of errors and miscarriages of justices. So the death penalty is absolutely unacceptable. If a miscarriage of justice leads to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole then even decades later its possible to release them from prison. If they've been executed then they can't be brought back to life.
So no to the death penalty. Not under any circumstances, because humanity can't operate it properly.
Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution is clear though that 'The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States' and the 17th Amendment of the US Constitution is clear that 'The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years.'
I agree with you TLG86. What sort of take up are you going to get from parents where their 12 year olds don’t seem under great COVID threat?
Hancock soft-announced the postponement of freedom in our country on a whim.
You know it. We all know it.
The official cave-in to SAGE will come once the government has sniffed the air to see that it is OK.
The next distraction/target from the Johnson regime from freedom is 'vaccinating the world by the end of 2022'
Seriously how much longer are you going to peddle this stuff?
With Johnson’s desire to vaccinate the world before end Q4 2022, I suspect big movement from him in next few weeks on the stockpiling UK has been building.
The UK has no choice really, global pandemic we really are all in it together, we need reciprocality on range of other issues too we won’t get if we are responsibility for creating long lasting frustration and anger.
Ask yourself, do you want 12 years olds in UK to get the vaccine before adults in Africa?
Your answer has to be no, does it not?
It might be a good thing to make vaccinations (against a range of different things perhaps) a condition of employment in a school though.
I have no issue though, with executing spies, traitors, francs-tireurs in wartime conditions. Or people guilty of serious war crimes.
The sooner we can get back to normal, the sooner we can live our lives, the more we can have a healthy economy, the less furlough cash needed, the more taxes generated, the more we can afford to give aid to Africa, the more vaccines etc we can pay for in Africa, the more Africans vaccinated by us.
There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the UK remaining locked down.
The Blair Trust? What a brain dead dry right wing think tank piece of junk that is.
“Tony Blair has defended his institute’s proposal to allow people who have been fully vaccinated extra freedoms.”
The only obvious place such thinking will go is spotlight the unvaccinated - the unclean - who will end up wearing bright yellow COVID badges in public, and get blamed for everything that goes wrong.
Blair is showing just how stupid and reactionary he is these days, no one on PB brain’s trust is going to support him on this discriminating policy?
long term.
No way are your vaccinations buying you complete freedom.
SAGE has won again. And wait til the autumn. Goodness. More lockdowns when cases explode. Furlough for ever.
The only thing that ever stops this, EVER is backing people and parties that are agitating for your freedom.
Please god no.
I still don’t forgive her for the talktalk hack that made my parents life miserable for a few years.
She’s worse than useless.
You were wrong and have been continually wrong.
You need to get off the internet and go and spend some time in the real world.
Where people are going to each others homes, going to work, going to pubs, going to restaurants, going to gyms, going to sports matches.
You used to be able to troll up to Glenbrittle campsite on Skye for a week and share the midge infested swamp with a few other climbers and nutters. Peace and quiet except for the haunting sound of the Black-throated divers in the distance and the patter of rain on your tent.
Now there's hundreds of idiots turning up (pre- pandemic, at least) who seem to think that passing places are for parking in and thus end up blocking the glen from one end to the other.
All because a daft TV programme featured a couple of small waterfalls of the type you can find anywhere in Scotland (admittedly missing Waterpipe Gully as the background, but still).
Ugh. Visiting the Cuillin Hills will never be the same again.
/rant
Too many imponderables for me.
I don't see how we won't be moved to Tier 3 this week.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hidden-costs-of-today-s-tax-deal/
You're right in thinking that it's probably best to wait for the outcome of these, since optimum dosages (alongt other stuff like potential interaction with other childhood vaccines) might well be different.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01061-4
The Pfizer vaccine is, of course, already approved for those over 12, and is quite safe.
Howard Beckett
@BeckettUnite
If you behave like a Tory, we will treat you like a Tory. Night all.
God what a tosser, bar anything else 40% of his electorate (Unite members) voted Conservative last election, with the number likely having risen since.
The attitude of the children themselves has not been mentioned. My daughters would become eligible and both want it. They understand the idea of herd immunity - so they want to vaccinate s part of the countrywide effort and realise that it offers a very small advantage for themselves.
I understand their friends have similar attitudes. Apparently anti-vax is as popular as being a racist in their peer groups - and they see turning down the vaccine as anti-vax.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57374241
"American author Naomi Wolf has been suspended from Twitter after spreading vaccine misinformation. Dr Wolf, well known for her acclaimed third-wave feminist book The Beauty Myth, posted a wide-range of unfounded theories about vaccines. One tweet claimed that vaccines were a "software platform that can receive uploads". She also compared Dr Anthony Fauci, the top Covid adviser in the US, to "Satan" to her more than 140,000 followers. Most recently, she tweeted that the urine and faeces of people who had received the jab needed to be separated from general sewage supplies while tests were done to measure its impact on non-vaccinated people through drinking water."
They’re doing a clinical trial on primary school kids in the US at the moment.
Good on your daughters, obviously brought up well!
Will do, later.
And that the case has been argued many times over the last century.