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.
It would make sense to get 12+ done as soon as 18+ have their first doses, and preferably before the schools go back in September.
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.
No reason why they could not have had mandatory 14 day isolation in quarantine hotels for anyone arriving that had been in India.
Because the PM was planning on visiting.
I know that was why and it proves yet again what a duffer Johnson is , what does it take for the dumb UK public to realise the Emperor really does not have any clothes.
I reread your death of US democracy article TSE and whilst I agree it's depressing let me have a crack at arguing why it's understandable.
As a committed Lib Dem supporter I was very pleased with the share of the vote they got in 2010. I was however disappointed with how that translated into seats, as I have been at every election I can remember.
When the Lib Dems entered government I was hugely in favour of them pushing for PR at Westminster elections despite that hardly being a popular policy. Would a supporter of FPTP not think that I wanted to change the electoral rules to benefit my party?
Of course I believe that unfairness to be true but the unfairness that GOP voters feel to be false and fake news. However given that they do believe in the stolen election narrative their subsequent support for changes to voting laws isn't disingenuous. So sayeth a wishy-washy liberal
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.
The point is though, surely, that you can’t operate a justice system which is required to assess a level of “certainty” to the guilty verdict before determining a sentence. Because the moment you do that you potentially undermine all guilty verdicts that don’t meet the threshold.
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.
No reason why they could not have had mandatory 14 day isolation in quarantine hotels for anyone arriving that had been in India.
Because the PM was planning on visiting.
I know that was why and it proves yet again what a duffer Johnson is , what does it take for the dumb UK public to realise the Emperor really does not have any clothes.
It’ll happen just after the people of Scotland see the same about their Empress.
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.
Indeed, in the 2004 US presidential campaign for example while John Kerry said he was generally opposed to the death penalty he did support it for convicted terrorists
I reread your death of US democracy article TSE and whilst I agree it's depressing let me have a crack at arguing why it's understandable.
As a committed Lib Dem supporter I was very pleased with the share of the vote they got in 2010. I was however disappointed with how that translated into seats, as I have been at every election I can remember.
When the Lib Dems entered government I was hugely in favour of them pushing for PR at Westminster elections despite that hardly being a popular policy. Would a supporter of FPTP not think that I wanted to change the electoral rules to benefit my party?
Of course I believe that unfairness to be true but the unfairness that GOP voters feel to be false and fake news. However given that they do believe in the stolen election narrative their subsequent support for changes to voting laws isn't disingenuous. So sayeth a wishy-washy liberal
Whether it is disingenuous or not is not the key point. The Republican elite know it is disingenuous as they defend themselves in court by saying no sane person should believe what they are saying.
It would probably augur better for the US if the Republican base was disingenuous and Machiavellian as well, as opposed to falling for something the people they vote for know is insane.
The key point is that this is very dangerous, not just for US democracy, but global democracy, freedom and the economy.
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.
I believe that a number of vaccinations - some among children - are made to benefit others (herd immunity) rather than primarily protecting the recipient.
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.
I see nothing wrong with so-called traitors who betray states guided by the forces of evil. People such as Stauffenberg are to be commended for their commitment to the wider interests of humanity.
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.
Similar but in a slightly different way, yes. There were supposedly 108,000 visitors to the "Fairy Pools" the year before the pandemic.
Previously you'd have been lucky to see 100 a week, even in summer, and 90% of those would have just have been walking past on the way to the mountains. The type of people that would tut at some orange peel, not leave litter everywhere. There was _zero_ infrastructure except for a small car park holding maybe 20 odd cars. Even loos would have been regarded as inappropriate development.
The Allt Coir' a' Mhadaidh has always been there but somehow it is now worth visiting just because it was in a TV programme?
Sorry. I know I'm an elitist when it comes to this, but...Outlander is a trigger word...
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.
No reason why they could not have had mandatory 14 day isolation in quarantine hotels for anyone arriving that had been in India.
Because the PM was planning on visiting.
I know that was why and it proves yet again what a duffer Johnson is , what does it take for the dumb UK public to realise the Emperor really does not have any clothes.
It’ll happen just after the people of Scotland see the same about their Empress.
But only one of those countries imposes its choice on the other.
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 ...
Do try to make your glee a little less obvious. But if you insist on comparing how well countries are doing in getting second doses to their populations...
The UK also has a smaller second-dose debt than either France or Germany. These are the numbers for partially vaccinated people waiting for a second dose:
I was at Belsay Castle yesterday in Northumberland for the Belsay horse trials. It was a spectacular setting and I highly recommend a visit if you like nature and sh*t
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.
I see nothing wrong with so-called traitors who betray states guided by the forces of evil. People such as Stauffenberg are to be commended for their commitment to the wider interests of humanity.
The Stauffenberg who wanted Germany to keep its eastern territorial gains and only started plotting against Hitler when Germany was clearly losing the war ?
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.
Similar but in a slightly different way, yes. There were supposedly 108,000 visitors to the "Fairy Pools" the year before the pandemic.
Previously you'd have been lucky to see 100 a week, even in summer, and 90% of those would have just have been walking past on the way to the mountains. The type of people that would tut at some orange peel, not leave litter everywhere. There was _zero_ infrastructure except for a small car park holding maybe 20 odd cars. Even loos would have been regarded as inappropriate development.
The Allt Coir' a' Mhadaidh has always been there but somehow it is now worth visiting just because it was in a TV programme?
Sorry. I know I'm an elitist when it comes to this, but...Outlander is a trigger word...
The sad bit is the way they will whine, when restrictions are brought in.
When the damage levels to Stonehenge got out of hand, it was interesting to talk to people about their "right to touch the stones". The savage selfishness of not considering their actions as part of an aggregated issue... I should have signed them up to sell CDO to widows and orphans on the spot....
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.
I don’t think the “getting it wrong” argument really stacks up - governments make mistakes all the time.
More fundamentally, governments are a collective organisation of the citizens to manage certain things that are best handled centrally. Their authority is derived from the citizens. The death penalty reversed that power relationship completely - at most all a government should be able to do is exclude an individual from the benefits of society fir a period of time through exile or prison.
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.
There’s an argument for some government aid, to places suffering from disasters or unrest - and Covid vaccines! A lot of the spending goes to British companies and charities, so it’s not money just sent abroad, and civilian aid is usually more welcome than military assistance, other than in the aftermath of a major disaster.
The 0.7% target does generate a lot of waste though, and money goes on crap programmes just because we need to spend it. It’s a lot better than it used to be though, Mitchell did a good job on that. As noted by others, very few countries come close to the target aid spending. This year, we should drop pretty much everything that’s not committed already, and build a vaccine factory or two in the UK to supply the world.
Vaccine aid (including a proportion of the R&D costs) should be counted in the 0.7%. Bingo - we'd already be there.
I'd say that we should be strenthening the consortia and partnerships around AZ and similar lower cost licensing programmes, targeted at building manufacturing worldwide related to a UK-centric research base. I think that is the enlightened philosophy.
I'd also go for partnerships with universities in Switzerland, Skandi, and developing countries too.
One of the weird things about the EU approach is that they are building it all around a 20bn vaccine factory in Germany to make vaccines at 25-30 Euro, which will add nothing to developing economies except making them dependent.
I think adding 3bn to the Indian economy, and smaller amounts in many other countries, is far more ethical.
BTW total vaccine production doubled from 420 million doses in April to 822 million in May, so we are well on the way to getting there are the required vaccine is very likely to be available this year or early in 2022.
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.
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.
Trump and Giuliani were both linked to Moscow. Does Naomi Wolf have snow on her boots?
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.
They would be completely kidding the point. We don’t care what causes the charities are promoting - what we are looking fit is inspirational leaders and helping them to unlock their potential. It’s all about impact not cause.
Our real agenda is to reform the traditional basis of grant giving on this country…
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
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.
Indeed, in the 2004 US presidential campaign for example while John Kerry said he was generally opposed to the death penalty he did support it for convicted terrorists
Ironically, Islamist terrorists, or at least the true believers amongst them, will probably welcome death if they believe they get a direct pass to heaven. It ain't a deterrent, and worse, might encourage copycats.
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 ...
Do try to make your glee a little less obvious. But if you insist on comparing how well countries are doing in getting second doses to their populations...
The UK also has a smaller second-dose debt than either France or Germany. These are the numbers for partially vaccinated people waiting for a second dose:
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
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.
The “R” - rubella - is explicitly to benefit others
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.
All I am trying to do is get a straightforward answer to straightforward question, instead you give yet more all over the road ranting. By your own ranting you think we should have opened up weeks ago to take advantage of our vaccination advantage, you told us to open up on 21st without 12yr old vaccinated, and yet you still won’t share the stockpile?
Are the 12yr olds in this country facing death like the adults in Africa?
Are the 12yr olds without vaccine preventing us opening up?
Where would you draw the line where you would then share stock pile? Why can’t you answer simple question?
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
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.
The French are cruising for a bruising.
We know that it needs double vaccination to seriously impact spread of the Delta / Indian variant, and we don't know that vaccinated people (esp. those pretending to be vaccinated) can't spread it. And that Delta has reached France.
Yet France is doing this when they are not yet even at 15% fully vaccinated including time for it to become active.
Plus presumably there total possible number will be lower than many places.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
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.
They would be completely kidding the point. We don’t care what causes the charities are promoting - what we are looking fit is inspirational leaders and helping them to unlock their potential. It’s all about impact not cause.
Our real agenda is to reform the traditional basis of grant giving on this country…
But if you don't give money to the right charities - some "founders" might have to give up their His&Hers RangeRovers, with matching vanity plates. Oh the Huge Manatees.....
Now, if we could do something similar with tech development funding.....
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
although we will soon be able to donate any surplus AZ vaccines.
We should get the RAF to fly it in.
Every time they hand it over they should recite their motto as well.
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.
All I am trying to do is get a straightforward answer to straightforward question, instead you give yet more all over the road ranting. By your own ranting you think we should have opened up weeks ago to take advantage of our vaccination advantage, you told us to open up on 21st without 12yr old vaccinated, and yet you still won’t share the stockpile?
Are the 12yr olds in this country facing death like the adults in Africa?
Are the 12yr olds without vaccine preventing us opening up?
Where would you draw the line where you would then share stock pile? Why can’t you answer simple question?
The real problem, of course, in terms of vaccines, will be China. 1.3 billion people vaccinated with something barely more useful than a placebo. That’s where I’d expect to see recurrent outbreaks.
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
You have a fine memory Dick, you also recall I claimed the vaccine IP should have been shared by now, and I was right on that too?
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
What about 24 versus 29? What if you factor in the downstream risk from infecting other people? Granular prioritisation for 18-30 year olds doesn't make much sense.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
Well yeah, but at what point does the time delay in trying to “mop everyone up” in a particular age group outweigh the benefit of just getting all the low hanging fruit done quickly?
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.
Yes, it's hard to know how much is cognitive impairment and how much is attention seeking. Or even how to tell those things apart. Or perhaps it's not an 'either/or' since they are linked. Saying crazy stuff gets attention which then makes you say more crazy stuff. How to judge whether the ostensible nutcase actually believes it? FWIW, my sense of this on a few nutjobs -
Trump - No. Wolf - Yes. Galloway - No. Gulliani - No. Piers Corbyn - Yes. All televangelists - No. Eric Clapton - Yes. Lozza - No.
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.
Indeed, in the 2004 US presidential campaign for example while John Kerry said he was generally opposed to the death penalty he did support it for convicted terrorists
Ironically, Islamist terrorists, or at least the true believers amongst them, will probably welcome death if they believe they get a direct pass to heaven. It ain't a deterrent, and worse, might encourage copycats.
Yes, quite so. Executing convicted terrorists would make martyrs of them and would likely increase the number of adherents to the cause. Making them rot in a prison cell is a much more effective deterrent.
The scientific advice shows that having one vaccine is not quite as effective against the Delta variant as against the most prevalent form of Covid-19 - but after both jabs, the protection is the same, adds Hancock.
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.
Indeed, in the 2004 US presidential campaign for example while John Kerry said he was generally opposed to the death penalty he did support it for convicted terrorists
Ironically, Islamist terrorists, or at least the true believers amongst them, will probably welcome death if they believe they get a direct pass to heaven. It ain't a deterrent, and worse, might encourage copycats.
Yes, quite so. Executing convicted terrorists would make martyrs of them and would likely increase the number of adherents to the cause. Making them rot in a prison cell is a much more effective deterrent.
Playing devil’s advocate, but do you have any evidence that a lengthy prison sentence is in any way a deterrent to a terrorist, never mind an ‘effective’ one?
Surely they just see themselves as potential PoWs and that’s all part of the war.
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
although we will soon be able to donate any surplus AZ vaccines.
We should get the RAF to fly it in.
Every time they hand it over they should recite their motto as well.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
I have sympathy with the idea of changing the model to walk ins and open to everyone now, because I think it might fit the under-30s better (though I still think they would mostly want an app driven appointment and not queue, just with a bit more flex for “I have time today what’s open”). However, I think staffing more centres would be a challenge. I’m told the ones we have are seeing volunteers tail off as they go back to work (a lot were community spirited but furloughed) and I can see that getting worse. We might need to mobilise civil servants and the like away from their day jobs soon.
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.
Yes, it seems so. As I said last night, a lot of the kids at the school my girlfriend works at, 100% Muslim, told the science teacher they were embarrassed at their parents anti vaxxery, based on their old fashioned beliefs. That said, 79% of Pakistanis and Muslims over 50 had the jab by April 21 according to ONS, so the overwhelming majority are playing ball, it’s just relatively worse than most other groups. You couldn’t call any group refuseniks. Bangladeshis were at 87%
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
although we will soon be able to donate any surplus AZ vaccines.
We should get the RAF to fly it in.
Every time they hand it over they should recite their motto as well.
Check in, not dig in.
Well, that might be appropriate for running a shuttle service, but I was thinking ‘Per Ardua ad Astra’ would be an awesome pun
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
I have sympathy with the idea of changing the model to walk ins and open to everyone now, because I think it might fit the under-30s better (though I still think they would mostly want an app driven appointment and not queue, just with a bit more flex for “I have time today what’s open”). However, I think staffing more centres would be a challenge. I’m told the ones we have are seeing volunteers tail off as they go back to work (a lot were community spirited but furloughed) and I can see that getting worse. We might need to mobilise civil servants and the like away from their day jobs soon.
Why do we need volunteers? We should be paying these people. Pay medical professionals to staff evening clinics. Pay students to martial people. It’s chump change in the grand scheme of things compared to the cost to the economy of 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?
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
although we will soon be able to donate any surplus AZ vaccines.
We should get the RAF to fly it in.
Every time they hand it over they should recite their motto as well.
Indeed.
What gealbhan has been calling for since March was for all the vaccines from the UK (which clearly still needed them) to be donated to other countries.
Apparently the British government deciding to let thousands more die unnecessarily in Britain (plus continuing economic and social damage) would somehow buy enough goodwill around the world to make up for the drawbacks.
A more likely result would be the rest of the world thinking Britain was some bleeding heart soft-touch who would give vital things away for nothing and would regard Britain with contempt.
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
But rich countries have a pipeline of more than they need whilst poorer countries are projected to be short. Is it right for the wealthy to be having boosters and vaccinating their children whilst the poor go whistle? This is a valid question, both morally and also pragmatically since this is a global pandemic which (arguably) should be addressed that way.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
I have sympathy with the idea of changing the model to walk ins and open to everyone now, because I think it might fit the under-30s better (though I still think they would mostly want an app driven appointment and not queue, just with a bit more flex for “I have time today what’s open”). However, I think staffing more centres would be a challenge. I’m told the ones we have are seeing volunteers tail off as they go back to work (a lot were community spirited but furloughed) and I can see that getting worse. We might need to mobilise civil servants and the like away from their day jobs soon.
Now that is a genius idea. Can you reassign the whole of the DfE, OFSTED, OFQUAL, the JCQ and all exam board staff?
And then forget to reassign them back?
Throw in the DDCMS and the DCLG as similar sized losers...
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.
Indeed, in the 2004 US presidential campaign for example while John Kerry said he was generally opposed to the death penalty he did support it for convicted terrorists
Ironically, Islamist terrorists, or at least the true believers amongst them, will probably welcome death if they believe they get a direct pass to heaven. It ain't a deterrent, and worse, might encourage copycats.
Yes, quite so. Executing convicted terrorists would make martyrs of them and would likely increase the number of adherents to the cause. Making them rot in a prison cell is a much more effective deterrent.
Playing devil’s advocate, but do you have any evidence that a lengthy prison sentence is in any way a deterrent to a terrorist, never mind an ‘effective’ one?
Surely they just see themselves as potential PoWs and that’s all part of the war.
Honestly, what has this site come to when somebody asks for 'evidence'?
No I haven't. But I suspect the evidence of death = martyr for the cause is quite strong. See for example suicide bombers.
As it seems likely, vaccination is going to be required every year (probably every winter), it is going to take some organization to get through 50 million doses during a 3 month period, especially when everybody is back working.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
Yes and no. The twelve year old, in term time, will cross over will a lot more other households at the minute, when so many of us are WFH.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
Yes and no. The twelve year old, in term time, will cross over will a lot more other households at the minute, when so many of us are WFH.
Ummm - more than at school?
Edit - incidentally, somebody upthread suggested twelve year olds could be vaccinated before September. Ain’t gonna happen. Leaving aside supply, the way to do that would be in school task forces. Could be done fairly easily over a couple of days, spaced a couple of months apart. Trying to do it any other way becomes complicated.
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.
Indeed, in the 2004 US presidential campaign for example while John Kerry said he was generally opposed to the death penalty he did support it for convicted terrorists
Ironically, Islamist terrorists, or at least the true believers amongst them, will probably welcome death if they believe they get a direct pass to heaven. It ain't a deterrent, and worse, might encourage copycats.
Yes, quite so. Executing convicted terrorists would make martyrs of them and would likely increase the number of adherents to the cause. Making them rot in a prison cell is a much more effective deterrent.
Playing devil’s advocate, but do you have any evidence that a lengthy prison sentence is in any way a deterrent to a terrorist, never mind an ‘effective’ one?
Surely they just see themselves as potential PoWs and that’s all part of the war.
Honestly, what has this site come to when somebody asks for 'evidence'?
No I haven't. But I suspect the evidence of death = martyr for the cause is quite strong. See for example suicide bombers.
I don’t think death is much of a deterrent either, like you say.
I think prison is a good deterrent for crimes of greed, etc, but not for crimes of passion or faith.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
And take the jabs to the people: universities; schools; factories; shopping centres. Even, or especially, where take-up rates are low. My suspicion is low take-up is in many cases due to approaching a ceiling with web-enabled patients who can take time off work: time for a new approach.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
I have sympathy with the idea of changing the model to walk ins and open to everyone now, because I think it might fit the under-30s better (though I still think they would mostly want an app driven appointment and not queue, just with a bit more flex for “I have time today what’s open”). However, I think staffing more centres would be a challenge. I’m told the ones we have are seeing volunteers tail off as they go back to work (a lot were community spirited but furloughed) and I can see that getting worse. We might need to mobilise civil servants and the like away from their day jobs soon.
Why do we need volunteers? We should be paying these people. Pay medical professionals to staff evening clinics. Pay students to martial people. It’s chump change in the grand scheme of things compared to the cost to the economy of COVID.
As furlough ends, I tend to agree with you (previously I’d have said “because we’re probably already paying 80% of their salary or all of their pension”. However I don’t think you’re going to outcompete more interesting, stable and long term work. So the problem probably persists.
As it seems likely, vaccination is going to be required every year (probably every winter), it is going to take some organization to get through 50 million doses during a 3 month period, especially when everybody is back working.
A leading virus expert said the other day that there's a good chance that covid will mutate to be more transmissible but nowhere near as serious. That's the general direction of these things. He reckoned two years or so.
Can't remember who it was though.
So maybe only next winter will need a massive population-wide booster. After that top ups for the vulnerables each year.
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
But rich countries have a pipeline of more than they need whilst poorer countries are projected to be short. Is it right for the wealthy to be having boosters and vaccinating their children whilst the poor go whistle? This is a valid question, both morally and also pragmatically since this is a global pandemic which (arguably) should be addressed that way.
I'm sure Britain will be donating millions of AZ every week very soon.
And when Novavax and Valneva become available I'm sure millions of those will be donated.
But if anyone wishes to speed up the date of donation then its within their choice not to accept any boosters.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
Yes and no. The twelve year old, in term time, will cross over will a lot more other households at the minute, when so many of us are WFH.
Ummm - more than at school?
Edit - incidentally, somebody upthread suggested twelve year olds could be vaccinated before September. Ain’t gonna happen. Leaving aside supply, the way to do that would be in school task forces. Could be done fairly easily over a couple of days, spaced a couple of months apart. Trying to do it any other way becomes complicated.
And therefore, it would *start* in September.
Yes, presumably anyone under 16 will be done at school same at TB or whatever.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
Well yeah, but at what point does the time delay in trying to “mop everyone up” in a particular age group outweigh the benefit of just getting all the low hanging fruit done quickly?
If you follow the weekly releases, you can see that they are not trying to completely "mop up" one age group before opening to the next.
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.
No reason why they could not have had mandatory 14 day isolation in quarantine hotels for anyone arriving that had been in India.
Hutton seems to be wrong anyway, as is his habit. The man is a goon. And some people are desperate for UK-bashing narratives that they don't bother to check.
As it seems likely, vaccination is going to be required every year (probably every winter), it is going to take some organization to get through 50 million doses during a 3 month period, especially when everybody is back working.
A leading virus expert said the other day that there's a good chance that covid will mutate to be more transmissible but nowhere near as serious. That's the general direction of these things. He reckoned two years or so.
Can't remember who it was though.
So maybe only next winter will need a massive population-wide booster. After that top ups for the vulnerables each year.
I hope that right now all our finest researchers are focussed on finding a combined flu and Covid jab that will use the new approach to protect against all variants.
That would make a vast difference to - well, just about everything.
As it seems likely, vaccination is going to be required every year (probably every winter), it is going to take some organization to get through 50 million doses during a 3 month period, especially when everybody is back working.
A leading virus expert said the other day that there's a good chance that covid will mutate to be more transmissible but nowhere near as serious. That's the general direction of these things. He reckoned two years or so.
Can't remember who it was though.
So maybe only next winter will need a massive population-wide booster. After that top ups for the vulnerables each year.
That's the theoretical evolution path and we have to hope that is how it goes, but isn't certain e.g. original -> Kent -> Indian variant is much more transmissible, and at best equal severity, probably worse.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
I have sympathy with the idea of changing the model to walk ins and open to everyone now, because I think it might fit the under-30s better (though I still think they would mostly want an app driven appointment and not queue, just with a bit more flex for “I have time today what’s open”). However, I think staffing more centres would be a challenge. I’m told the ones we have are seeing volunteers tail off as they go back to work (a lot were community spirited but furloughed) and I can see that getting worse. We might need to mobilise civil servants and the like away from their day jobs soon.
Why do we need volunteers? We should be paying these people. Pay medical professionals to staff evening clinics. Pay students to martial people. It’s chump change in the grand scheme of things compared to the cost to the economy of COVID.
As furlough ends, I tend to agree with you (previously I’d have said “because we’re probably already paying 80% of their salary or all of their pension”. However I don’t think you’re going to outcompete more interesting, stable and long term work. So the problem probably persists.
That’s why students should do be encouraged to do it. Pay them enough and it will be popular. Have them managed by experienced managers, from the civil service if necessary, and it would look great on their empty CVs too.
Win-Win.
Should have been thought of before now mind but never too late.
For others, you simply need to have the ‘shifts’ start at a reasonable time, and pay for their tea if necessary, so that they can do it after other full-time work.
I’d certainly consider it if I could start at 6:30pm, for example, and had access to food.
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.
No reason why they could not have had mandatory 14 day isolation in quarantine hotels for anyone arriving that had been in India.
Hutton seems to be wrong anyway, as is his habit. The man is a goon. And some people are desperate for UK-bashing narratives that they don't bother to check.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
Well yeah, but at what point does the time delay in trying to “mop everyone up” in a particular age group outweigh the benefit of just getting all the low hanging fruit done quickly?
If you follow the weekly releases, you can see that they are not trying to completely "mop up" one age group before opening to the next.
They could have easily dropped it below 30 already, unless supply is constrained, which we are constantly told it isn’t.
The number of jabs we’re doing per day isn’t enough.
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.
I see nothing wrong with so-called traitors who betray states guided by the forces of evil. People such as Stauffenberg are to be commended for their commitment to the wider interests of humanity.
The Stauffenberg who wanted Germany to keep its eastern territorial gains and only started plotting against Hitler when Germany was clearly losing the war ?
Many Tories - and others - believed it was wrong for Britain to give up its Imperial conquests in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
although we will soon be able to donate any surplus AZ vaccines.
We should get the RAF to fly it in.
Every time they hand it over they should recite their motto as well.
Check in, not dig in.
Well, that might be appropriate for running a shuttle service, but I was thinking ‘Per Ardua ad Astra’ would be an awesome pun
Banner headlines of Matt Hancock saying "I don't rule out" and "I'm open to" delaying the roadmap. I don't get this at all. This is precisely zero change to what the position has always been. The final 'unlock' is penciled in for 21st June but such will not be confirmed until 14th June.
So the Cock is bound to say he's "open to" and "doesn't rule out" a delay. If he said otherwise he'd be admitting the decision is already made and rather than "data not dates" it's the opposite. Now THAT would be big news. But why does the Cock saying what he obviously has to say merit being big news?
Banner headlines of Matt Hancock saying "I don't rule out" and "I'm open to" delaying the roadmap. I don't get this at all. This is precisely zero change to what the position has always been. The final 'unlock' is penciled in for 21st June but such will not be confirmed until 14th June.
So the Cock is bound to say he's "open to" and "doesn't rule out" a delay. If he said otherwise he'd be admitting the decision is already made and rather than "data not dates" it's the opposite. Now THAT would be big news. But why does the Cock saying what he obviously has to say merit being big news?
Its classic media questioning / reporting. They got their headline, job done.
As it seems likely, vaccination is going to be required every year (probably every winter), it is going to take some organization to get through 50 million doses during a 3 month period, especially when everybody is back working.
A leading virus expert said the other day that there's a good chance that covid will mutate to be more transmissible but nowhere near as serious. That's the general direction of these things. He reckoned two years or so.
Can't remember who it was though.
So maybe only next winter will need a massive population-wide booster. After that top ups for the vulnerables each year.
That's the theoretical evolution path and we have to hope that is how it goes, but isn't certain e.g. original -> Kent -> Indian variant is much more transmissible, and at best equal severity, probably worse.
Is it worse? The initial reports on the Kentish variant suggested that. Studies found it to in fact not be...
Just back from a walk in town. Normality, almost. Apart from waiters wearing masks (whom I feel really sorry for, frankly, whilst all the patrons don't need to), you wouldn't know there was a pandemic.
I think the Govt know that the restrictions pretty much have to end in a fortnight's time. Because as I've said before they're behind the curve in respect of public behaviour. Making it 'guidance' to wear masks in shops, for example, will probably be just about swallowable - allows the fearful to keep them on with a little pride, and the rest of us to get back to normal.
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.
No reason why they could not have had mandatory 14 day isolation in quarantine hotels for anyone arriving that had been in India.
Because the PM was planning on visiting.
I know that was why and it proves yet again what a duffer Johnson is , what does it take for the dumb UK public to realise the Emperor really does not have any clothes.
It’ll happen just after the people of Scotland see the same about their Empress.
The intelligent Scots already know how bad she is, we have plenty of dumb sheeple as well unfortrunately.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
Well yeah, but at what point does the time delay in trying to “mop everyone up” in a particular age group outweigh the benefit of just getting all the low hanging fruit done quickly?
If you follow the weekly releases, you can see that they are not trying to completely "mop up" one age group before opening to the next.
They could have easily dropped it below 30 already, unless supply is constrained, which we are constantly told it isn’t.
The number of jabs we’re doing per day isn’t enough.
I don't know what news you are listening to - the vaccination rate is constrained by the supply, which has been repeatedly said to be constrained.
What has been said is that there is enough vaccine to match the plan for opening up.
One thing I would like to know about vaccinations is, at what point will the vaccinated not have to isolate if they come into contact with a case?
I know that most of them have already stopped bothering, but in a school we have to send several children home for every case - it works out at a ratio of one to six. If therefore, unvaccinated contacts have to keep isolating, that seems to me to be the best possible reason for extending vaccinations to schoolchildren.
And, will there come a time when non-vaccinated contacts don’t have to isolate any more? If so, when?
Here is a sobering stat - 60% of children missed at least a week of schooling in the autumn term through infection or isolation.
If we have to keep that going it makes schooling much, much more difficult. The school system actually snapped under the pressure in the autumn causing major disruption to lessons for the rest, although the DfE as retards who should probably be sectioned managed not to notice.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
Well yeah, but at what point does the time delay in trying to “mop everyone up” in a particular age group outweigh the benefit of just getting all the low hanging fruit done quickly?
If you follow the weekly releases, you can see that they are not trying to completely "mop up" one age group before opening to the next.
They could have easily dropped it below 30 already, unless supply is constrained, which we are constantly told it isn’t.
The number of jabs we’re doing per day isn’t enough.
I don't know what news you are listening to - the vaccination rate is constrained by the supply, which has been repeatedly said to be constrained.
What has been said is that there is enough vaccine to match the plan for opening up.
I'm guessing that the switch away from AZ for us young 'uns disrupted the planned and much vaunted 'ramp up'; but we're still doing very well. I remember someone (not here) laughing at me when I suggested that we could get 250k a day done really quite easily....
We still haven't given all second jabs to those over 50 yet. This ought to be priority number one. And separating the hesitant/scared and difficult to contact from the outright refusers in those groups and getting them done next.
One thing I would like to know about vaccinations is, at what point will the vaccinated not have to isolate if they come into contact with a case?
I know that most of them have already stopped bothering, but in a school we have to send several children home for every case - it works out at a ratio of one to six. If therefore, unvaccinated contacts have to keep isolating, that seems to me to be the best possible reason for extending vaccinations to schoolchildren.
And, will there come a time when non-vaccinated contacts don’t have to isolate any more? If so, when?
Here is a sobering stat - 60% of children missed at least a week of schooling in the autumn term through infection or isolation.
If we have to keep that going it makes schooling much, much more difficult. The school system actually snapped under the pressure in the autumn causing major disruption to lessons for the rest, although the DfE as retards who should probably be sectioned managed not to notice.
I agree. We need to change this pronto - vaccinated means get on with life.
My anecdotal evidence suggests that the only people getting PCR tests now are children/teachers/parents; as those are the only people I have heard of amongst my friends since about Christmas who have had to get a test...
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.
They would be completely kidding the point. We don’t care what causes the charities are promoting - what we are looking fit is inspirational leaders and helping them to unlock their potential. It’s all about impact not cause.
Our real agenda is to reform the traditional basis of grant giving on this country…
But if you don't give money to the right charities - some "founders" might have to give up their His&Hers RangeRovers, with matching vanity plates. Oh the Huge Manatees.....
Now, if we could do something similar with tech development funding.....
That’s why Blackrock, Moodys, UBS and Rothschild give through us… we are ugly enough to take the heat they don’t want to…
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
But rich countries have a pipeline of more than they need whilst poorer countries are projected to be short. Is it right for the wealthy to be having boosters and vaccinating their children whilst the poor go whistle? This is a valid question, both morally and also pragmatically since this is a global pandemic which (arguably) should be addressed that way.
I'm sure Britain will be donating millions of AZ every week very soon.
And when Novavax and Valneva become available I'm sure millions of those will be donated.
But if anyone wishes to speed up the date of donation then its within their choice not to accept any boosters.
Yes, good points - bar the final sentence which is the usual reductive personalizing drivel.
Just seeing Overton on the field for England...and this story the authorities would drop Robinson for the next test because of his old tweets...would be somewhat ironic if they picked Overton as his replacement, who in the past got suspended for using racist language against a batsman.
Banner headlines of Matt Hancock saying "I don't rule out" and "I'm open to" delaying the roadmap. I don't get this at all. This is precisely zero change to what the position has always been. The final 'unlock' is penciled in for 21st June but such will not be confirmed until 14th June.
So the Cock is bound to say he's "open to" and "doesn't rule out" a delay. If he said otherwise he'd be admitting the decision is already made and rather than "data not dates" it's the opposite. Now THAT would be big news. But why does the Cock saying what he obviously has to say merit being big news?
Its classic media questioning / reporting. They got their headline, job done.
I see Labour are back to why aren't we vaccinating (insert group), this time 12 year olds...
It's moronic. We British understand the concept of queuing, and waiting for our turn. Vaccinating in age order is simple to understand and makes medical sense.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
To be fair queuing only works if those at the front of the queue actually move forward, which they are not at the moment. Better at this point to just vaccinate everyone who wants one now to get as many people vaccinated in as short amount of time, which is the aim of the game.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
The curves show that risk strongly correlates with age, even down in the low risk ages.
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
Well yeah, but at what point does the time delay in trying to “mop everyone up” in a particular age group outweigh the benefit of just getting all the low hanging fruit done quickly?
If you follow the weekly releases, you can see that they are not trying to completely "mop up" one age group before opening to the next.
They could have easily dropped it below 30 already, unless supply is constrained, which we are constantly told it isn’t.
The number of jabs we’re doing per day isn’t enough.
I don't know what news you are listening to - the vaccination rate is constrained by the supply, which has been repeatedly said to be constrained.
What has been said is that there is enough vaccine to match the plan for opening up.
I'm guessing that the switch away from AZ for us young 'uns disrupted the planned and much vaunted 'ramp up'; but we're still doing very well. I remember someone (not here) laughing at me when I suggested that we could get 250k a day done really quite easily....
On average, we are vaccinating about 1% of the adult population daily (dipped a bit, to 0.9%, this week because of half term).
Within a couple of days from now we will have passed the US in percentage full vaccinated - and be 4th or so in the world for full vaccination.
Inside the next 30 days, we will have caught up on the second doses. Which will mean that we can increase the proportion of 1st doses again.
Just seeing Overton on the field for England...and this story the authorities would drop Robinson for the next test because of his old tweets...would be somewhat ironic if they picked Overton as his replacement, who in the past got suspended for using racist language against a batsman.
Banner headlines of Matt Hancock saying "I don't rule out" and "I'm open to" delaying the roadmap. I don't get this at all. This is precisely zero change to what the position has always been. The final 'unlock' is penciled in for 21st June but such will not be confirmed until 14th June.
So the Cock is bound to say he's "open to" and "doesn't rule out" a delay. If he said otherwise he'd be admitting the decision is already made and rather than "data not dates" it's the opposite. Now THAT would be big news. But why does the Cock saying what he obviously has to say merit being big news?
Its classic media questioning / reporting. They got their headline, job done.
Yes, I suppose so. But I'm not a fan of it.
Well neither am I....I find all these interviews tedious and generally uninformative, its a stuipd.gotcha game. The gotcha today was to get Hancock to say something off message about the 21st. He didn't, but they have spun it like he has.
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
But rich countries have a pipeline of more than they need whilst poorer countries are projected to be short. Is it right for the wealthy to be having boosters and vaccinating their children whilst the poor go whistle? This is a valid question, both morally and also pragmatically since this is a global pandemic which (arguably) should be addressed that way.
I'm sure Britain will be donating millions of AZ every week very soon.
And when Novavax and Valneva become available I'm sure millions of those will be donated.
But if anyone wishes to speed up the date of donation then its within their choice not to accept any boosters.
Yes, good points - bar the final sentence which is the usual reductive personalizing drivel.
Its the reality.
We can all virtue signal about how the country should be sharing vaccines or paying more tax.
But how many people chose to make the sacrifice themselves ?
Banner headlines of Matt Hancock saying "I don't rule out" and "I'm open to" delaying the roadmap. I don't get this at all. This is precisely zero change to what the position has always been. The final 'unlock' is penciled in for 21st June but such will not be confirmed until 14th June.
So the Cock is bound to say he's "open to" and "doesn't rule out" a delay. If he said otherwise he'd be admitting the decision is already made and rather than "data not dates" it's the opposite. Now THAT would be big news. But why does the Cock saying what he obviously has to say merit being big news?
Its classic media questioning / reporting. They got their headline, job done.
Yes, I suppose so. But I'm not a fan of it.
Its a dance the media love for some reason. They want Hancock to slip and accidentally say something they can claim means the decision has been made earlier.
It's this kind of bullshit that makes me smile when I watch this
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 ?
And I was right about the impression of greedily sitting on a stockpile would cause longer term where we NEED something in return.
So you were wrong.
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
although we will soon be able to donate any surplus AZ vaccines.
We should get the RAF to fly it in.
Every time they hand it over they should recite their motto as well.
Check in, not dig in.
Well, that might be appropriate for running a shuttle service, but I was thinking ‘Per Ardua ad Astra’ would be an awesome pun
Just seeing Overton on the field for England...and this story the authorities would drop Robinson for the next test because of his old tweets...would be somewhat ironic if they picked Overton as his replacement, who in the past got suspended for using racist language against a batsman.
Minefield....
Would be very typical of the ECB though.
The thing is, didn't Robinson effectively already get punished for this behaviour...his county sacked him, not explicitly for the tweets, but for generally being a total dickhead and unprofessional.
My take on all these situations is when was it and is there evidence of a continued pattern of behaviour e.g. Jares O'Mara was still doing this stuff online and in real life right up to being elected.
Just seeing Overton on the field for England...and this story the authorities would drop Robinson for the next test because of his old tweets...would be somewhat ironic if they picked Overton as his replacement, who in the past got suspended for using racist language against a batsman.
Minefield....
Would be very typical of the ECB though.
The thing is, didn't Robinson effectively already get punished for this behaviour...his county sacked him, not explicitly for the tweets, but for generally being a total dickhead and unprofessional.
Well, ostensibly, although I understand the main problem was he never turned up for morning training sessions.
Again, however, ‘generally being a total dickhead and unprofessional’ never seemed to hurt Colin Graves or Tom Harrison.
Banner headlines of Matt Hancock saying "I don't rule out" and "I'm open to" delaying the roadmap. I don't get this at all. This is precisely zero change to what the position has always been. The final 'unlock' is penciled in for 21st June but such will not be confirmed until 14th June.
So the Cock is bound to say he's "open to" and "doesn't rule out" a delay. If he said otherwise he'd be admitting the decision is already made and rather than "data not dates" it's the opposite. Now THAT would be big news. But why does the Cock saying what he obviously has to say merit being big news?
The mood music has changed though. 21 June used to be an end to all legal restrictions (with the implicit exception of international travel).
Now it is a possible end to most/some restrictions, with a possible delay.
An end to all legal restrictions won't happen, even if further loosening of restrictions does.
Comments
As a committed Lib Dem supporter I was very pleased with the share of the vote they got in 2010. I was however disappointed with how that translated into seats, as I have been at every election I can remember.
When the Lib Dems entered government I was hugely in favour of them pushing for PR at Westminster elections despite that hardly being a popular policy. Would a supporter of FPTP not think that I wanted to change the electoral rules to benefit my party?
Of course I believe that unfairness to be true but the unfairness that GOP voters feel to be false and fake news. However given that they do believe in the stolen election narrative their subsequent support for changes to voting laws isn't disingenuous. So sayeth a wishy-washy liberal
It would probably augur better for the US if the Republican base was disingenuous and Machiavellian as well, as opposed to falling for something the people they vote for know is insane.
The key point is that this is very dangerous, not just for US democracy, but global democracy, freedom and the economy.
Previously you'd have been lucky to see 100 a week, even in summer, and 90% of those would have just have been walking past on the way to the mountains. The type of people that would tut at some orange peel, not leave litter everywhere. There was _zero_ infrastructure except for a small car park holding maybe 20 odd cars. Even loos would have been regarded as inappropriate development.
The Allt Coir' a' Mhadaidh has always been there but somehow it is now worth visiting just because it was in a TV programme?
Sorry. I know I'm an elitist when it comes to this, but...Outlander is a trigger word...
UK: 12,963,594
France: 14,106,085
Germany: 20,549,574
When the damage levels to Stonehenge got out of hand, it was interesting to talk to people about their "right to touch the stones". The savage selfishness of not considering their actions as part of an aggregated issue... I should have signed them up to sell CDO to widows and orphans on the spot....
More fundamentally, governments are a collective organisation of the citizens to manage certain things that are best handled centrally. Their authority is derived from the citizens. The death penalty reversed that power relationship completely - at most all a government should be able to do is exclude an individual from the benefits of society fir a period of time through exile or prison.
https://www.ukri.org/our-work/tackling-the-impact-of-covid-19/vaccines-and-treatments/how-the-uk-is-transforming-vaccine-manufacturing/
I'd say that we should be strenthening the consortia and partnerships around AZ and similar lower cost licensing programmes, targeted at building manufacturing worldwide related to a UK-centric research base. I think that is the enlightened philosophy.
I'd also go for partnerships with universities in Switzerland, Skandi, and developing countries too.
One of the weird things about the EU approach is that they are building it all around a 20bn vaccine factory in Germany to make vaccines at 25-30 Euro, which will add nothing to developing economies except making them dependent.
I think adding 3bn to the Indian economy, and smaller amounts in many other countries, is far more ethical.
BTW total vaccine production doubled from 420 million doses in April to 822 million in May, so we are well on the way to getting there are the required vaccine is very likely to be available this year or early in 2022.
https://twitter.com/goulcher/status/1401437260369874952?s=21
Our real agenda is to reform the traditional basis of grant giving on this country…
On this chart you can see that the trajectory of second vaccinations in the UK is very steep - we are going to pass the US quite shortly.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=total_vaccinations&Metric=People+fully+vaccinated&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=BHR~BRA~CAN~CHL~FRA~DEU~HUN~IND~ISR~ITA~MNG~GBR~USA
Which leads to this overall status -
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=population&hideControls=true&Metric=People+vaccinated+(by+dose)&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=BHR~CHL~FRA~DEU~HUN~IND~ISR~SRB~GBR~USA~URY~ESP~ITA~ARE~MEX~RUS~JPN~ZAF~KOR~MAR~UZB~PER~AGO~MYS~MOZ~GHA~CMR~NPL~AUS~NER~LKA~MLI~ROU~KAZ~ZMB~GTM~ECU~NLD~SEN~KHM~SOM~ZWE~GIN~RWA~BEN~TUN~BOL
6th highest proportion of fully vaccinated people in the world currently.
This is one of the rare occasions when, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" will have no traction at all.
Are the 12yr olds in this country facing death like the adults in Africa?
Are the 12yr olds without vaccine preventing us opening up?
Where would you draw the line where you would then share stock pile? Why can’t you answer simple question?
And given there is no stockpile you're wrong about that as well.
We know that it needs double vaccination to seriously impact spread of the Delta / Indian variant, and we don't know that vaccinated people (esp. those pretending to be vaccinated) can't spread it. And that Delta has reached France.
Yet France is doing this when they are not yet even at 15% fully vaccinated including time for it to become active.
Plus presumably there total possible number will be lower than many places.
Walk in centres everywhere. Just get as many jabs into as many arms as possible. The vulnerable have already been done long ago, just get it done as fast as possible now.
Now, if we could do something similar with tech development funding.....
We should get the RAF to fly it in.
Every time they hand it over they should recite their motto as well.
Which will not make them popular...
A 35 year old will, on average, get orders of magnitude more benefit from a COVID vaccination than a 12 year old, for example.
Trump - No.
Wolf - Yes.
Galloway - No.
Gulliani - No.
Piers Corbyn - Yes.
All televangelists - No.
Eric Clapton - Yes.
Lozza - No.
Have Leon and Tony ever been seen the same room?
Izzatso?
https://twitter.com/alliehbnews/status/1401284116381831169?s=21
Surely they just see themselves as potential PoWs and that’s all part of the war.
at 87%
What gealbhan has been calling for since March was for all the vaccines from the UK (which clearly still needed them) to be donated to other countries.
Apparently the British government deciding to let thousands more die unnecessarily in Britain (plus continuing economic and social damage) would somehow buy enough goodwill around the world to make up for the drawbacks.
A more likely result would be the rest of the world thinking Britain was some bleeding heart soft-touch who would give vital things away for nothing and would regard Britain with contempt.
And then forget to reassign them back?
Throw in the DDCMS and the DCLG as similar sized losers...
No I haven't. But I suspect the evidence of death = martyr for the cause is quite strong. See for example suicide bombers.
Edit - incidentally, somebody upthread suggested twelve year olds could be vaccinated before September. Ain’t gonna happen. Leaving aside supply, the way to do that would be in school task forces. Could be done fairly easily over a couple of days, spaced a couple of months apart. Trying to do it any other way becomes complicated.
And therefore, it would *start* in September.
I think prison is a good deterrent for crimes of greed, etc, but not for crimes of passion or faith.
No evidence from me either mind, just my feeling.
Can't remember who it was though.
So maybe only next winter will need a massive population-wide booster. After that top ups for the vulnerables each year.
And when Novavax and Valneva become available I'm sure millions of those will be donated.
But if anyone wishes to speed up the date of donation then its within their choice not to accept any boosters.
Italy closed its borders on April 25.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-imposes-travel-ban-india-over-covid-variant-2021-04-25/
Uk on April 23.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56806103
That would make a vast difference to - well, just about everything.
Win-Win.
Should have been thought of before now mind but never too late.
For others, you simply need to have the ‘shifts’ start at a reasonable time, and pay for their tea if necessary, so that they can do it after other full-time work.
I’d certainly consider it if I could start at 6:30pm, for example, and had access to food.
Christopher Booker was another.
The number of jabs we’re doing per day isn’t enough.
So the Cock is bound to say he's "open to" and "doesn't rule out" a delay. If he said otherwise he'd be admitting the decision is already made and rather than "data not dates" it's the opposite. Now THAT would be big news. But why does the Cock saying what he obviously has to say merit being big news?
Just back from a walk in town. Normality, almost. Apart from waiters wearing masks (whom I feel really sorry for, frankly, whilst all the patrons don't need to), you wouldn't know there was a pandemic.
I think the Govt know that the restrictions pretty much have to end in a fortnight's time. Because as I've said before they're behind the curve in respect of public behaviour. Making it 'guidance' to wear masks in shops, for example, will probably be just about swallowable - allows the fearful to keep them on with a little pride, and the rest of us to get back to normal.
What has been said is that there is enough vaccine to match the plan for opening up.
I know that most of them have already stopped bothering, but in a school we have to send several children home for every case - it works out at a ratio of one to six. If therefore, unvaccinated contacts have to keep isolating, that seems to me to be the best possible reason for extending vaccinations to schoolchildren.
And, will there come a time when non-vaccinated contacts don’t have to isolate any more? If so, when?
Here is a sobering stat - 60% of children missed at least a week of schooling in the autumn term through infection or isolation.
If we have to keep that going it makes schooling much, much more difficult. The school system actually snapped under the pressure in the autumn causing major disruption to lessons for the rest, although the DfE as retards who should probably be sectioned managed not to notice.
And separating the hesitant/scared and difficult to contact from the outright refusers in those groups and getting them done next.
My anecdotal evidence suggests that the only people getting PCR tests now are children/teachers/parents; as those are the only people I have heard of amongst my friends since about Christmas who have had to get a test...
Minefield....
Within a couple of days from now we will have passed the US in percentage full vaccinated - and be 4th or so in the world for full vaccination.
Inside the next 30 days, we will have caught up on the second doses. Which will mean that we can increase the proportion of 1st doses again.
We can all virtue signal about how the country should be sharing vaccines or paying more tax.
But how many people chose to make the sacrifice themselves ?
It's this kind of bullshit that makes me smile when I watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quwB5eAKh4s
My take on all these situations is when was it and is there evidence of a continued pattern of behaviour e.g. Jares O'Mara was still doing this stuff online and in real life right up to being elected.
Again, however, ‘generally being a total dickhead and unprofessional’ never seemed to hurt Colin Graves or Tom Harrison.
Now it is a possible end to most/some restrictions, with a possible delay.
An end to all legal restrictions won't happen, even if further loosening of restrictions does.
First dose 175,001
Second dose 415,644
Total doses 590,645
Hopefully the increase will continue next week.