Then again, 8% of me looks on this like the dedicated jet/first class/slum it in economy argument with the PM. I don't want the PM to have to rely on Speedy Boarding when he wants to attend a World Leaders' summit somewhere. Likewise, if he is fit and well and testing negative I want him available and doing his job.
Perhaps that is 18%.
I think that as far as Johnson is concerned this debacle over the last 48 hours all sends entirely the wrong message. We know that Johnson has had the virus and the whole UK strategy has been based on the principle that we cannot open up again until the population are either vaccinated or have anti-bodies through infection.
Making Johnson self isolate sends the very simple message that we are never going to be able to go back to normal life. If having the best form of immunity going isn't enough then nothing ever will be.
Johnson should have taken the opportunity to say that he was leading by example (please don't laugh at the back I know it is a ridiculous concept where he is concerned) and that there would no longer be any need to self isolate for those who are jabbed or can prove to have the antibodies.
The message now is that we will never be free of these controls because they are following a zero case policy even if they don't announce it officially.
I agree the trouble is, compounding the problem, is that if he made this imo entirely necessary and sensible announcement he would get slaughtered as fitting policy to his own situation. So that if nothing else probably means we are stuck with the Aug date.
Hope your daughter is recovered btw.
Cheers sir.
She is out of the isolation period and generally recovered although she still hasn't properly got senses of smell or taste back.
I have to admit we actually broke the law on this one. She was self isolating with her girlfriend over at their house in Nottingham but then last wednesday she missed the bottom 3 steps on her stairs and fractured her ankle. After treatment we decided it was impractical for her to stay at the house particularly as her partner had to work and so we brought her home on Friday. She took a LF Test before coming back and it was negative but even had it still been positive we would have brought her back. Balance of risks and care.
On topic I agree with you of course. Once Johnson had set himself on the course of refusing to end self isolation for the masses he could never have changed the rules for himself. As it is he appeared to try to do so and so got slaughtered for it quite rightly. He should never have got himself into that position in the first place and even once there should have had the courage to do what was right and say the policy was wrong and would be changed.
Quite a lot replacement items coming in my shopping delivery later apparently.
Looks like the pingdemic is starting to hit on supplies?
Only affects at Waitrose yesterday was my friendly till operator was working on a day off as people were isolating, and the deli counter was shut. No obvious food shortages. Yet.
Our local Sainsbury’s and Tesco have had their deli counter shut for over a year now. I was in Sainsbury’s at the weekend. No better or worse than usual for stuff on the shelves. Same with local costcutter.
How stupid is Katie Hopkins? I mean, I know she’s got a vile set of viewpoints, but she’s also practically bankrupt, got herself a sweet probably remunerative gig on Celebrity Big Brother Australia, but couldn’t keep her mouth shut for just 2 weeks.
She answered the door to her quarantine room naked. No wonder they deported her.
I hope the people affected are getting the support they need...
The big plan was that today would be dominated by Johnson’s big speech to the nation with all the Churchillian undertones to celebrate how the country had got through the COVID crisis and now, thanks to the vaccination success, we could look forward to a new future.
Apparently there was nothing undertonic about the intended Churchill speech.
Then again, 8% of me looks on this like the dedicated jet/first class/slum it in economy argument with the PM. I don't want the PM to have to rely on Speedy Boarding when he wants to attend a World Leaders' summit somewhere. Likewise, if he is fit and well and testing negative I want him available and doing his job.
Perhaps that is 18%.
I think that as far as Johnson is concerned this debacle over the last 48 hours all sends entirely the wrong message. We know that Johnson has had the virus and the whole UK strategy has been based on the principle that we cannot open up again until the population are either vaccinated or have anti-bodies through infection.
Making Johnson self isolate sends the very simple message that we are never going to be able to go back to normal life. If having the best form of immunity going isn't enough then nothing ever will be.
Johnson should have taken the opportunity to say that he was leading by example (please don't laugh at the back I know it is a ridiculous concept where he is concerned) and that there would no longer be any need to self isolate for those who are jabbed or can prove to have the antibodies.
The message now is that we will never be free of these controls because they are following a zero case policy even if they don't announce it officially.
Shame the government didn't "listen to me"* last week (and before) when I said (along with some others) that the requirement to self isolate for those who have been double jabbed is disproportionate.
Meant in a metaphoric way!
I agree with you on this 100%.
Boris has screwed up keeping self isolation for another month.
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
Oh i don't disagree and i can see why the JCVI came to that decision. I am saying though politically, some kid dies and their parents are somebody important and they will be making a massive stink and everything gets blown out of proportion with some campaign about government willing to kill our kids to save a tenner per kid.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
With reference to @DougSeal pointing out that a "cohesive alternative" to the liar is needed, tomorrow could be a pivotal day.
Labour's NEC are meeting and on the agenda is the mass expulsion of the anti-semites and revolutionary marxists. Already the likes of Laura Pillock are ranting about it on Twitter, they know that if passed the Labour Party takes a big step towards electability which is why she is so against it.
My "kick them out" argument upsets a few people arguing that Starmer should appease, but he's tried that and appears to have realised that appeasement only encourages them.
Would you consider rejoining a cleansed Lab party?
1. I've moved on. I realised my politics and theirs had been diverging for a while, and my brief flirt with Corbyn was a result of me desperately trying to find some kind of change to keep me onboard. I didn't actually support Corbyn, I did support changing the narrative 2. Enjoying my LibDem membership. I think we can do something up here in Aberdeenshire. What there is of a local Labour Party appears to be suffering from foaming dog fever 2. Even if I did want to rejoin I am only 1 year into my 5 year ban
Ah oh wow didn't realise you had a ban. But surely that is from the previous administration. A letter to SKS might put everything right.
But yes - I hear your reasons. 'Cept doing well in Aberdeenshire is hardly recompense for forming a national govt...
A relation of my wife's, very able chap, used to very big in the LibDems in that area. Councillor, Election Agent...... not sure at what level. Think he retired a year or so ago now, though and has gone back to orienteering and fell-walking or whatever they call it in Scotland.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
Feel free to keep calling him Liar - I know you like to. Personally I think he is from a long line of liars. Political standards have definitely slipped. It used to be that a politician would do almost anything to avoid telling a direct lie, pace Michael Howard (?), but now, as chronicled by Peter Oborne in 'The Rise of Political Lying', no such efforts are deemed needed. If a lie is exposed, it was merely mispoken, or taken out of context or whatever. To spread it a round a bit, the previous Labour leader was certainly no stranger with deceit, as his repeated issues around Jews showed. Its sad that it has come to this. Its almost priced in now, hence Johnson's seeming defying of gravity in the polls. I also sense that Starmer is less likely to do it, although he has a nasty habit of trying to skewer the PM on a detail, and not always being wholly correct.
Politicians lie.. they all do it. The act of calling Boris a liar before having said anything is equivalent to the act of masturbation. It makes the poster feel.better..
"The number of children registering for home education in the UK rose by 75% in the first eight months of the current school year, according to BBC research."
There is no such thing as "registering for home education" when the education is provided at home by parents.
Interesting point. Is there any regulatory oversight for people that "home school" their children? It seems pretty unhealthy to me.
With reference to @DougSeal pointing out that a "cohesive alternative" to the liar is needed, tomorrow could be a pivotal day.
Labour's NEC are meeting and on the agenda is the mass expulsion of the anti-semites and revolutionary marxists. Already the likes of Laura Pillock are ranting about it on Twitter, they know that if passed the Labour Party takes a big step towards electability which is why she is so against it.
My "kick them out" argument upsets a few people arguing that Starmer should appease, but he's tried that and appears to have realised that appeasement only encourages them.
Would you consider rejoining a cleansed Lab party?
1. I've moved on. I realised my politics and theirs had been diverging for a while, and my brief flirt with Corbyn was a result of me desperately trying to find some kind of change to keep me onboard. I didn't actually support Corbyn, I did support changing the narrative 2. Enjoying my LibDem membership. I think we can do something up here in Aberdeenshire. What there is of a local Labour Party appears to be suffering from foaming dog fever 2. Even if I did want to rejoin I am only 1 year into my 5 year ban
Ah oh wow didn't realise you had a ban. But surely that is from the previous administration. A letter to SKS might put everything right.
But yes - I hear your reasons. 'Cept doing well in Aberdeenshire is hardly recompense for forming a national govt...
A relation of my wife's, very able chap, used to very big in the LibDems in that area. Councillor, Election Agent...... not sure at what level. Think he retired a year or so ago now, though and has gone back to orienteering and fell-walking or whatever they call it in Scotland.
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
Make it voluntary. Let those who want to get the vaccine get it, those who don't, don't.
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
Yes but it's not all about the individual. Children can spread the virus to others, they may form a reservoir for mutations and there is the risk of disruption to education. I expect a frantic reversal of this policy in October when we are hit with a wave of school closures.
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
For god's sake don't let @Andy_Cooke hear you talk like that.
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
Oh i don't disagree and i can see why the JCVI came to that decision. I am saying though politically, some kid dies and their parents are somebody important and they will be making a massive stink and everything gets blow out of proportion.
I think there's a much bigger risk in the other direction. A kid being killed by the vaccine.
But either way, I think the media have been quite responsible in this area. Even when there were the potential AZ deaths, the media reported them and then moved on. Whilst they've tried to make life difficult for the government, they didn't dare go all anti-vaxxer.
Similarly, I bet some child has died because they caught COVID at school. But the media haven't played the "your endangering our children" card at all.
So I don't think the government needs to worry about not vaccinating kids.
Then again, 8% of me looks on this like the dedicated jet/first class/slum it in economy argument with the PM. I don't want the PM to have to rely on Speedy Boarding when he wants to attend a World Leaders' summit somewhere. Likewise, if he is fit and well and testing negative I want him available and doing his job.
Perhaps that is 18%.
I think that as far as Johnson is concerned this debacle over the last 48 hours all sends entirely the wrong message. We know that Johnson has had the virus and the whole UK strategy has been based on the principle that we cannot open up again until the population are either vaccinated or have anti-bodies through infection.
Making Johnson self isolate sends the very simple message that we are never going to be able to go back to normal life. If having the best form of immunity going isn't enough then nothing ever will be.
Johnson should have taken the opportunity to say that he was leading by example (please don't laugh at the back I know it is a ridiculous concept where he is concerned) and that there would no longer be any need to self isolate for those who are jabbed or can prove to have the antibodies.
The message now is that we will never be free of these controls because they are following a zero case policy even if they don't announce it officially.
I agree the trouble is, compounding the problem, is that if he made this imo entirely necessary and sensible announcement he would get slaughtered as fitting policy to his own situation. So that if nothing else probably means we are stuck with the Aug date.
Hope your daughter is recovered btw.
Cheers sir.
She is out of the isolation period and generally recovered although she still hasn't properly got senses of smell or taste back.
I have to admit we actually broke the law on this one. She was self isolating with her girlfriend over at their house in Nottingham but then last wednesday she missed the bottom 3 steps on her stairs and fractured her ankle. After treatment we decided it was impractical for her to stay at the house particularly as her partner had to work and so we brought her home on Friday. She took a LF Test before coming back and it was negative but even had it still been positive we would have brought her back. Balance of risks and care.
On topic I agree with you of course. Once Johnson had set himself on the course of refusing to end self isolation for the masses he could never have changed the rules for himself. As it is he appeared to try to do so and so got slaughtered for it quite rightly. He should never have got himself into that position in the first place and even once there should have had the courage to do what was right and say the policy was wrong and would be changed.
Balance of risk and care; sounds a sensible decision What is the saying about the law about fools and wise men?
On topic, it's only sad that AIUI, the PM will not be able to answer questions about his observance of the guidelines on Wednesday. Not that he does answer questions, of course.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
Feel free to keep calling him Liar - I know you like to. Personally I think he is from a long line of liars. Political standards have definitely slipped. It used to be that a politician would do almost anything to avoid telling a direct lie, pace Michael Howard (?), but now, as chronicled by Peter Oborne in 'The Rise of Political Lying', no such efforts are deemed needed. If a lie is exposed, it was merely mispoken, or taken out of context or whatever. To spread it a round a bit, the previous Labour leader was certainly no stranger with deceit, as his repeated issues around Jews showed. Its sad that it has come to this. Its almost priced in now, hence Johnson's seeming defying of gravity in the polls. I also sense that Starmer is less likely to do it, although he has a nasty habit of trying to skewer the PM on a detail, and not always being wholly correct.
Politics is relative. The LOTO has to be better than the PM, that's all. For this he needs:
A clear approach on how Brexit will work (or be altered) under him. A better set of policies on Covid - which should be a running saga - think how Blair would do it. Clarity on how he would govern with SNP support and red lines, since that is the only likely option. How he will balance the books.
They are all hard. Politics is hard. Silence won't do. He can't beat Boris by attacking him, we have to know what he would do instead.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
With reference to @DougSeal pointing out that a "cohesive alternative" to the liar is needed, tomorrow could be a pivotal day.
Labour's NEC are meeting and on the agenda is the mass expulsion of the anti-semites and revolutionary marxists. Already the likes of Laura Pillock are ranting about it on Twitter, they know that if passed the Labour Party takes a big step towards electability which is why she is so against it.
My "kick them out" argument upsets a few people arguing that Starmer should appease, but he's tried that and appears to have realised that appeasement only encourages them.
Would you consider rejoining a cleansed Lab party?
1. I've moved on. I realised my politics and theirs had been diverging for a while, and my brief flirt with Corbyn was a result of me desperately trying to find some kind of change to keep me onboard. I didn't actually support Corbyn, I did support changing the narrative 2. Enjoying my LibDem membership. I think we can do something up here in Aberdeenshire. What there is of a local Labour Party appears to be suffering from foaming dog fever 2. Even if I did want to rejoin I am only 1 year into my 5 year ban
Ah oh wow didn't realise you had a ban. But surely that is from the previous administration. A letter to SKS might put everything right.
But yes - I hear your reasons. 'Cept doing well in Aberdeenshire is hardly recompense for forming a national govt...
I think a lot of us have moved on from Labour. Besides which, wouldn't life be dull with someone as dour as Starmer heading the nation. Remember Brown and May?
We have only had two years of the Keystone Cops administration, and there may be no-one and nothing left by the time they finish. But isn't it rivetting viewing watching Boris the Clown's hilarious, and let's face it, dangerous capers.
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
Yes but it's not all about the individual. Children can spread the virus to others, they may form a reservoir for mutations and there is the risk of disruption to education. I expect a frantic reversal of this policy in October when we are hit with a wave of school closures.
No it is about the individual. Jabbing children to prevent spread to others, if the jab does more harm than good to the children, is unethical.
As it happens I think the jab does more good than harm, which makes it moot. But if the judgement is the opposite, then simply trying to deal with the reservoir alone is unethical.
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
Yes but it's not all about the individual. Children can spread the virus to others, they may form a reservoir for mutations and there is the risk of disruption to education. I expect a frantic reversal of this policy in October when we are hit with a wave of school closures.
But then by that logic, schools should never have reopened.
"The number of children registering for home education in the UK rose by 75% in the first eight months of the current school year, according to BBC research."
There is no such thing as "registering for home education" when the education is provided at home by parents.
Interesting point. Is there any regulatory oversight for people that "home school" their children? It seems pretty unhealthy to me.
Apparently there is. A former neighbour, moved about 6 months ago, was home-schooling their two, and apparently not only is there inspection, but, locally anyway, there's a home-schoolers network, where the children themselves can socialise, and parents can share expertise.
With reference to @DougSeal pointing out that a "cohesive alternative" to the liar is needed, tomorrow could be a pivotal day.
Labour's NEC are meeting and on the agenda is the mass expulsion of the anti-semites and revolutionary marxists. Already the likes of Laura Pillock are ranting about it on Twitter, they know that if passed the Labour Party takes a big step towards electability which is why she is so against it.
My "kick them out" argument upsets a few people arguing that Starmer should appease, but he's tried that and appears to have realised that appeasement only encourages them.
Would you consider rejoining a cleansed Lab party?
1. I've moved on. I realised my politics and theirs had been diverging for a while, and my brief flirt with Corbyn was a result of me desperately trying to find some kind of change to keep me onboard. I didn't actually support Corbyn, I did support changing the narrative 2. Enjoying my LibDem membership. I think we can do something up here in Aberdeenshire. What there is of a local Labour Party appears to be suffering from foaming dog fever 2. Even if I did want to rejoin I am only 1 year into my 5 year ban
Ah oh wow didn't realise you had a ban. But surely that is from the previous administration. A letter to SKS might put everything right.
But yes - I hear your reasons. 'Cept doing well in Aberdeenshire is hardly recompense for forming a national govt...
Yeah, well, he supported and actively campaigned for a party opposing his own party - that's a banning offence in every major British party, and I know several LibDems who were banned for years for putting up a poster for me. They knew it would happen and accepted the consequences. I think it's a 3-year ban before a review is possible, though- I suspect we'll see Alastair Campbell and others welcomed back next year.
There is some discreet polygamy at local level - there's a lady in Broxtowe who has been a member of both Labour and Greens for years, and we all shut an eye to it. Another asked me if she could join UKIP as well as Labour because she was pro-redistribution but anti-EU. I discouraged that, but never enquired whether she did.
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
Oh i don't disagree and i can see why the JCVI came to that decision. I am saying though politically, some kid dies and their parents are somebody important and they will be making a massive stink and everything gets blow out of proportion.
I think there's a much bigger risk in the other direction. A kid being killed by the vaccine.
But either way, I think the media have been quite responsible in this area. Even when there were the potential AZ deaths, the media reported them and then moved on. Whilst they've tried to make life difficult for the government, they didn't dare go all anti-vaxxer.
Similarly, I bet some child has died because they caught COVID at school. But the media haven't played the "your endangering our children" card at all.
So I don't think the government needs to worry about not vaccinating kids.
Yes and no.....yes much more responsible than the German FT or mini Trump, but remember the uproar over going to 12 weeks. Was the biggest gamble since the world began.
And Non-independent SAGE have been pushing for children to be vaccinated and we know how much the media love to give them air time. Also so far, everybody has been ok with it as vaccination has gone in age, so although some other countries have started to vaccinate children the position which has been hard yo attack is we go in order of age / risk.
"The number of children registering for home education in the UK rose by 75% in the first eight months of the current school year, according to BBC research."
There is no such thing as "registering for home education" when the education is provided at home by parents.
Interesting point. Is there any regulatory oversight for people that "home school" their children? It seems pretty unhealthy to me.
9f cours it means nothing without numbers. If the number has gone up from 100 to 175 . Its not newsworthy. 75% is....
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
As others have said, make it available but don't push it in the way it was pushed for over 18s.
Covid: very low risk for children, as far as the evidence shows. Vaccination: very low risk for children, as far as the evidence shows.
So other factors, such as needing a vaccination to go and do things that will enhance the lives of those children come in to play.
Anecdote - as a PhD student I got on a three week field trip to Chile, great. The area was low risk for rabies and I and the other participants decided to skip the course of vaccinations. The uni insurer had other ideas - they'd airlift us out if needed (remote area in Patagonia) but for them us getting jabbed greatly reduced their liabilities for medical/repatriation costs, so we had to get jabbed to go. We, obviously, got jabbed, due to that external factor it was clearly worth it to get to go.
See also this recent segment on C4 News: https://www.channel4.com/news/debate-should-uk-children-be-offered-the-covid-jab The child wants the jab to get back to normal life (and possibly away from over-protective parents, depending on her exact risks!). The prof, who led a study showing very low risk of Covid deaths in children was clearly invited on to argue the opposite view, but doesn't play ball and says let the kids decide (if JVCI say it's safe). I agree.
Which politician doesn't? Whether directly, or by evasion and misinformation. Some are better liars than others
We show our bias by how we react to it. I do too.
In the same way, newspapers and TV channels show their political inclination by the stories they concentrate on.
But one obvious fact that irritates me is when people don't seem to understand the basics. Antibiotics can kill bacteria directly. Vaccines don't. They prime the immune system to do it. If your immune system is failing, through age or infirmity, you'll have problems. This seems hard to understand for some reason.
Incidentally, do they still routinely use adjuvants? Genuine question. I could google but often you can get an expert on here to explain better.
Yes, they do.
More generally IO as a whole is absolutely moving towards combination therapy with checkpoint inhibitors and bispecifics leading the way
With reference to @DougSeal pointing out that a "cohesive alternative" to the liar is needed, tomorrow could be a pivotal day.
Labour's NEC are meeting and on the agenda is the mass expulsion of the anti-semites and revolutionary marxists. Already the likes of Laura Pillock are ranting about it on Twitter, they know that if passed the Labour Party takes a big step towards electability which is why she is so against it.
My "kick them out" argument upsets a few people arguing that Starmer should appease, but he's tried that and appears to have realised that appeasement only encourages them.
Would you consider rejoining a cleansed Lab party?
1. I've moved on. I realised my politics and theirs had been diverging for a while, and my brief flirt with Corbyn was a result of me desperately trying to find some kind of change to keep me onboard. I didn't actually support Corbyn, I did support changing the narrative 2. Enjoying my LibDem membership. I think we can do something up here in Aberdeenshire. What there is of a local Labour Party appears to be suffering from foaming dog fever 2. Even if I did want to rejoin I am only 1 year into my 5 year ban
Ah oh wow didn't realise you had a ban. But surely that is from the previous administration. A letter to SKS might put everything right.
But yes - I hear your reasons. 'Cept doing well in Aberdeenshire is hardly recompense for forming a national govt...
When I completely fell off the mental health cliff last year I wanted a return to "normal". Which for 25 years had been the Labour Party. So I abruptly quit the LibDems (which as I had been elected Treasurer of the local party and was in the middle of doing their accounts wasn't optimal) and applied to rejoin Labour.
Initially felt great - my friends were welcoming! Then I started thinking more rationally and realised that I was Dr Zimsky in The Core dictating notes as the nuclear bomb pinning me down ticked away towards detonation - 'What the fuck am I doing?'
So when the letter arrived refusing my membership application it was a relief. Have just rechecked - refusal is a 2 year ban, not 5. Doesn't matter, we're done. @Taz says I am a little obsessive - you could say the same about me posting a lot about the Tories. I am not a socialist. Once you come out as NAS you don't really fit in Labour/
I don't post a great deal about the LibDems because nationally we aren't doing a lot and this is a betting site that usually reacts to news. Not a lot of breaking news with us, despite the huuuuuge surge back into double figures in the polls. Locally though the party machine is well organised and on it.
What advantages have we actually gained? Are we any more free or open than elsewhere in Europe? It doesn't seem like it
Yes we are. We're the most open nation in Europe.
I don't think that's true - I think Denmark is more open than the UK.
Debateable as it stands, but 100% definitely not the case as of midnight.
In Denmark you can't enter a gym, or attend any organised indoor sport events without a Corona Passport. In the UK you've been able to attend a gym without a Covid passport.
In Denmark you need a Corona Passport to enter restraurants, cafes and bars. You don't in the UK. In Denmark all restaraunts, cafes and bars much close no later than 2am.
In Denmark for massages, haircuts and tattoos etc you must present a Covid Passport. You don't in the UK.
In Denmark you can't enter a museum, amusement park, cinema, venues, zoos, stadiums or other sport venues without a corona passport. You can in the UK.
In Denmark all discos and nightclubs are closed, they will be open tonight in the UK.
In Denmark its illegal to have indoor events and activities of more than 250 people, all such restrictions are being abolished in the UK.
In Denmark a face mask is legally required on public transport. Its not in the UK from tomorrow.
Taking of which, Sweden now seems to be the only EU member not having a 3rd wave, (cases staying at 200-250 a day)
Perhaps, that's just luck and it will start to rise next week, or maybe that's because lots of young people including under 18s had it asymptomatically in the earlier wayvs and therefor have a level of antibody/T Cell immunity, which in conjunction with the Vaccines in the Old and middle-aged.
Anybody else with 17 months hindsight wish we had taken the Swedish approach?
In order to understand “the Swedish approach” you have to understand a bit about Swedish culture. England could never have adopted the Swedish approach, because England (and most of RoW) lacks lots of unusual characteristics of Swedish society.
The first and most important thing that you must learn about Sweden is the heavy bias towards the young. Swedes have a disregard for the upper middle aged and elderly that most other cultures would find utterly shocking. The elderly are *not* regarded as a reservoir of wisdom, automatically deserving respect, even veneration, as in most world cultures. It is not that Swedes dislike older people, it is just that we don’t see them as a group deserving special status. This underlies *everything* about Swedish society, and is probably the reason most foreigners find it difficult to get a grasp on us. They realise we are different, perhaps even odd, but they can’t quite put their finger on it.
Allied to this phenomenon, children and young adults are very highly valued and resources are heavily invested in their welfare and wellbeing.
Further, “the family”, while important, is not the be all and end all of societal structure. And levels of faith are very low by international standards (Scotland and Sweden were the first two countries to consistently measure atheists/agnostics to be in a majority).
Then we have other odd Swedish characteristics, like a strong distrust of melodrama, suspicion of eccentrics and contrarians, a near-unanimous trust in teamwork as a problem solving technique, and remarkable gender equality (feminism is not a characteristic of the left in Sweden; women, and most men, throughout all social groups and all income levels are fundamentalist feminists in a way astonishing to most other cultures). Huge trust in technology, very low population density, small households in low density housing, many single households, very high minimum housing standards, low levels of corruption, a willingness to pay high taxes, high trust in politicians and public bodies, a sane media, etc etc etc
Combine this with an extraordinarily decentralised civil service and political structure, and you might begin to understand our Covid19 response.
We didn’t panic. We acted as a team. We protected the long-term interests of our children and young adults.
It’s not rocket science.
For people interested in the topic, I can recommend this article, which includes a fascinating diagram of world cultures: look how Sweden is way up to the top right (very low resolution and hard to read: better resolution images are available):
Interesting to note that GB is on that map considered closest to . . . Australia and New Zealand. Funny that!
It is an fascinating map for sure. The WVS is an interesting dataset, I have used it in academic research. On a point of clarification though, it looks like we are closest to NZ but closer to Belgium, Switzerland and the US than Australia. Some interesting results in there more broadly... How come everyone has missed the obvious solution to the Northern Ireland problem - give it to Uruguay. As someone with experience of the raw data, I would point out that the variation in opinions within countries is far greater than across countries, and for instance the elderly in two countries often have views more similar to each other than to the young in their own countries. Still, the differences in country means are significant and interesting.
I like that suggestion, the bigots of NI would probably be happier on issues like gay marriage, abortion etc in Uruguay than with Great Britain.
Fair point technically that Belgium and Switzerland are a tad closer than Aus. I do wonder though if England, Scotland and Wales were listed separately how they'd appear.
My guess is the English would move marginally towards Australia (marginally because Celts are only about 10% anyway) while the Scots would move closer to Europe.
Would the Scots appear in the English bubble, the Protestant bubble or the Catholic bubble though? My guess much to the irritation probably of most Scots they'd probably be in the Protestant one is my guess.
Differences in values between Scots and English are actually quite small but yes I think on balance Scotland would be a bit closer to the Northern European Protestant camp. Most Scots are (nominally) Protestant - we had a particularly nasty version of the Reformation - so I don't think that would be a big source of irritation!
What advantages have we actually gained? Are we any more free or open than elsewhere in Europe? It doesn't seem like it
Yes we are. We're the most open nation in Europe.
I don't think that's true - I think Denmark is more open than the UK.
Debateable as it stands, but 100% definitely not the case as of midnight.
In Denmark you can't enter a gym, or attend any organised indoor sport events without a Corona Passport. In the UK you've been able to attend a gym without a Covid passport.
In Denmark you need a Corona Passport to enter restraurants, cafes and bars. You don't in the UK. In Denmark all restaraunts, cafes and bars much close no later than 2am.
In Denmark for massages, haircuts and tattoos etc you must present a Covid Passport. You don't in the UK.
In Denmark you can't enter a museum, amusement park, cinema, venues, zoos, stadiums or other sport venues without a corona passport. You can in the UK.
In Denmark all discos and nightclubs are closed, they will be open tonight in the UK.
In Denmark its illegal to have indoor events and activities of more than 250 people, all such restrictions are being abolished in the UK.
In Denmark a face mask is legally required on public transport. Its not in the UK from tomorrow.
Taking of which, Sweden now seems to be the only EU member not having a 3rd wave, (cases staying at 200-250 a day)
Perhaps, that's just luck and it will start to rise next week, or maybe that's because lots of young people including under 18s had it asymptomatically in the earlier wayvs and therefor have a level of antibody/T Cell immunity, which in conjunction with the Vaccines in the Old and middle-aged.
Anybody else with 17 months hindsight wish we had taken the Swedish approach?
In order to understand “the Swedish approach” you have to understand a bit about Swedish culture. England could never have adopted the Swedish approach, because England (and most of RoW) lacks lots of unusual characteristics of Swedish society.
The first and most important thing that you must learn about Sweden is the heavy bias towards the young. Swedes have a disregard for the upper middle aged and elderly that most other cultures would find utterly shocking. The elderly are *not* regarded as a reservoir of wisdom, automatically deserving respect, even veneration, as in most world cultures. It is not that Swedes dislike older people, it is just that we don’t see them as a group deserving special status. This underlies *everything* about Swedish society, and is probably the reason most foreigners find it difficult to get a grasp on us. They realise we are different, perhaps even odd, but they can’t quite put their finger on it.
Allied to this phenomenon, children and young adults are very highly valued and resources are heavily invested in their welfare and wellbeing.
Further, “the family”, while important, is not the be all and end all of societal structure. And levels of faith are very low by international standards (Scotland and Sweden were the first two countries to consistently measure atheists/agnostics to be in a majority).
Then we have other odd Swedish characteristics, like a strong distrust of melodrama, suspicion of eccentrics and contrarians, a near-unanimous trust in teamwork as a problem solving technique, and remarkable gender equality (feminism is not a characteristic of the left in Sweden; women, and most men, throughout all social groups and all income levels are fundamentalist feminists in a way astonishing to most other cultures). Huge trust in technology, very low population density, small households in low density housing, many single households, very high minimum housing standards, low levels of corruption, a willingness to pay high taxes, high trust in politicians and public bodies, a sane media, etc etc etc
Combine this with an extraordinarily decentralised civil service and political structure, and you might begin to understand our Covid19 response.
We didn’t panic. We acted as a team. We protected the long-term interests of our children and young adults.
It’s not rocket science.
For people interested in the topic, I can recommend this article, which includes a fascinating diagram of world cultures: look how Sweden is way up to the top right (very low resolution and hard to read: better resolution images are available):
Interesting to note that GB is on that map considered closest to . . . Australia and New Zealand. Funny that!
It is an fascinating map for sure. The WVS is an interesting dataset, I have used it in academic research. On a point of clarification though, it looks like we are closest to NZ but closer to Belgium, Switzerland and the US than Australia. Some interesting results in there more broadly... How come everyone has missed the obvious solution to the Northern Ireland problem - give it to Uruguay. As someone with experience of the raw data, I would point out that the variation in opinions within countries is far greater than across countries, and for instance the elderly in two countries often have views more similar to each other than to the young in their own countries. Still, the differences in country means are significant and interesting.
I like that suggestion, the bigots of NI would probably be happier on issues like gay marriage, abortion etc in Uruguay than with Great Britain.
Fair point technically that Belgium and Switzerland are a tad closer than Aus. I do wonder though if England, Scotland and Wales were listed separately how they'd appear.
My guess is the English would move marginally towards Australia (marginally because Celts are only about 10% anyway) while the Scots would move closer to Europe.
Would the Scots appear in the English bubble, the Protestant bubble or the Catholic bubble though? My guess much to the irritation probably of most Scots they'd probably be in the Protestant one is my guess.
Differences in values between Scots and English are actually quite small but yes I think on balance Scotland would be a bit closer to the Northern European Protestant camp. Most Scots are (nominally) Protestant - we had a particularly nasty version of the Reformation - so I don't think that would be a big source of irritation!
The reason I thought irritation for most (and maybe I'm projecting NI onto Scotland) is I'd think most unionists would prefer Scotland in the English-speaking bubble, most nationalists would prefer Scotland in the Catholic Europe bubble, but the reality would probably be the Protestant Europe bubble.
With reference to @DougSeal pointing out that a "cohesive alternative" to the liar is needed, tomorrow could be a pivotal day.
Labour's NEC are meeting and on the agenda is the mass expulsion of the anti-semites and revolutionary marxists. Already the likes of Laura Pillock are ranting about it on Twitter, they know that if passed the Labour Party takes a big step towards electability which is why she is so against it.
My "kick them out" argument upsets a few people arguing that Starmer should appease, but he's tried that and appears to have realised that appeasement only encourages them.
Would you consider rejoining a cleansed Lab party?
1. I've moved on. I realised my politics and theirs had been diverging for a while, and my brief flirt with Corbyn was a result of me desperately trying to find some kind of change to keep me onboard. I didn't actually support Corbyn, I did support changing the narrative 2. Enjoying my LibDem membership. I think we can do something up here in Aberdeenshire. What there is of a local Labour Party appears to be suffering from foaming dog fever 2. Even if I did want to rejoin I am only 1 year into my 5 year ban
Ah oh wow didn't realise you had a ban. But surely that is from the previous administration. A letter to SKS might put everything right.
But yes - I hear your reasons. 'Cept doing well in Aberdeenshire is hardly recompense for forming a national govt...
Yeah, well, he supported and actively campaigned for a party opposing his own party - that's a banning offence in every major British party, and I know several LibDems who were banned for years for putting up a poster for me. They knew it would happen and accepted the consequences. I think it's a 3-year ban before a review is possible, though- I suspect we'll see Alastair Campbell and others welcomed back next year.
There is some discreet polygamy at local level - there's a lady in Broxtowe who has been a member of both Labour and Greens for years, and we all shut an eye to it. Another asked me if she could join UKIP as well as Labour because she was pro-redistribution but anti-EU. I discouraged that, but never enquired whether she did.
For clarity its 2 years not 3 or 5. The party absolutely has the right to set its own rules. I quit, campaigned against them and they rightly refused me back - no complaints.
Probably worth noting that the rule isn't really a rule as it gets waived depending on who the defector is and the prevailing wind direction. Defection from the Tories has been openly welcomed in the past, and we had one example of someone openly campaigning for some Trot splinter group who then not only is allowed to join the party but gets paid by it to join Jezbollah's inner sanctum.
Question - have the Tories banned by Liar been allowed back? The likes of Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke etc
"There is no a legal requirement..." does nobody proofread anything anymore?
Perfectly acceptable Scottish usage.
Strong Britain, great nation.
Ha ha good point. On a related point, any Sunday Post readers on here? I'd be fascinated to see whether Covid has penetrated the world of Oor Wullie and the Broons.
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
Get the vaccine privately. It’s been authorised by the MHRA (according to someone who posted on here - haven’t checked). Why should your mate have a handout from the taxpayer so he can go on holiday?
What advantages have we actually gained? Are we any more free or open than elsewhere in Europe? It doesn't seem like it
Yes we are. We're the most open nation in Europe.
I don't think that's true - I think Denmark is more open than the UK.
Debateable as it stands, but 100% definitely not the case as of midnight.
In Denmark you can't enter a gym, or attend any organised indoor sport events without a Corona Passport. In the UK you've been able to attend a gym without a Covid passport.
In Denmark you need a Corona Passport to enter restraurants, cafes and bars. You don't in the UK. In Denmark all restaraunts, cafes and bars much close no later than 2am.
In Denmark for massages, haircuts and tattoos etc you must present a Covid Passport. You don't in the UK.
In Denmark you can't enter a museum, amusement park, cinema, venues, zoos, stadiums or other sport venues without a corona passport. You can in the UK.
In Denmark all discos and nightclubs are closed, they will be open tonight in the UK.
In Denmark its illegal to have indoor events and activities of more than 250 people, all such restrictions are being abolished in the UK.
In Denmark a face mask is legally required on public transport. Its not in the UK from tomorrow.
Taking of which, Sweden now seems to be the only EU member not having a 3rd wave, (cases staying at 200-250 a day)
Perhaps, that's just luck and it will start to rise next week, or maybe that's because lots of young people including under 18s had it asymptomatically in the earlier wayvs and therefor have a level of antibody/T Cell immunity, which in conjunction with the Vaccines in the Old and middle-aged.
Anybody else with 17 months hindsight wish we had taken the Swedish approach?
In order to understand “the Swedish approach” you have to understand a bit about Swedish culture. England could never have adopted the Swedish approach, because England (and most of RoW) lacks lots of unusual characteristics of Swedish society.
The first and most important thing that you must learn about Sweden is the heavy bias towards the young. Swedes have a disregard for the upper middle aged and elderly that most other cultures would find utterly shocking. The elderly are *not* regarded as a reservoir of wisdom, automatically deserving respect, even veneration, as in most world cultures. It is not that Swedes dislike older people, it is just that we don’t see them as a group deserving special status. This underlies *everything* about Swedish society, and is probably the reason most foreigners find it difficult to get a grasp on us. They realise we are different, perhaps even odd, but they can’t quite put their finger on it.
Allied to this phenomenon, children and young adults are very highly valued and resources are heavily invested in their welfare and wellbeing.
Further, “the family”, while important, is not the be all and end all of societal structure. And levels of faith are very low by international standards (Scotland and Sweden were the first two countries to consistently measure atheists/agnostics to be in a majority).
Then we have other odd Swedish characteristics, like a strong distrust of melodrama, suspicion of eccentrics and contrarians, a near-unanimous trust in teamwork as a problem solving technique, and remarkable gender equality (feminism is not a characteristic of the left in Sweden; women, and most men, throughout all social groups and all income levels are fundamentalist feminists in a way astonishing to most other cultures). Huge trust in technology, very low population density, small households in low density housing, many single households, very high minimum housing standards, low levels of corruption, a willingness to pay high taxes, high trust in politicians and public bodies, a sane media, etc etc etc
Combine this with an extraordinarily decentralised civil service and political structure, and you might begin to understand our Covid19 response.
We didn’t panic. We acted as a team. We protected the long-term interests of our children and young adults.
It’s not rocket science.
For people interested in the topic, I can recommend this article, which includes a fascinating diagram of world cultures: look how Sweden is way up to the top right (very low resolution and hard to read: better resolution images are available):
Interesting to note that GB is on that map considered closest to . . . Australia and New Zealand. Funny that!
It is an fascinating map for sure. The WVS is an interesting dataset, I have used it in academic research. On a point of clarification though, it looks like we are closest to NZ but closer to Belgium, Switzerland and the US than Australia. Some interesting results in there more broadly... How come everyone has missed the obvious solution to the Northern Ireland problem - give it to Uruguay. As someone with experience of the raw data, I would point out that the variation in opinions within countries is far greater than across countries, and for instance the elderly in two countries often have views more similar to each other than to the young in their own countries. Still, the differences in country means are significant and interesting.
I like that suggestion, the bigots of NI would probably be happier on issues like gay marriage, abortion etc in Uruguay than with Great Britain.
Fair point technically that Belgium and Switzerland are a tad closer than Aus. I do wonder though if England, Scotland and Wales were listed separately how they'd appear.
My guess is the English would move marginally towards Australia (marginally because Celts are only about 10% anyway) while the Scots would move closer to Europe.
Would the Scots appear in the English bubble, the Protestant bubble or the Catholic bubble though? My guess much to the irritation probably of most Scots they'd probably be in the Protestant one is my guess.
Differences in values between Scots and English are actually quite small but yes I think on balance Scotland would be a bit closer to the Northern European Protestant camp. Most Scots are (nominally) Protestant - we had a particularly nasty version of the Reformation - so I don't think that would be a big source of irritation!
The reason I thought irritation for most (and maybe I'm projecting NI onto Scotland) is I'd think most unionists would prefer Scotland in the English-speaking bubble, most nationalists would prefer Scotland in the Catholic Europe bubble, but the reality would probably be the Protestant Europe bubble.
We are pretty Calvinist, I think Protestant Europe would suit most Scots fine, probably even some of the Catholics.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
Get the vaccine privately. It’s been authorised by the MHRA (according to someone who posted on here - haven’t checked). Why should your mate have a handout from the taxpayer so he can go on holiday?
Where ? How ? Is there some secret pharmacy that is providing them. I'd love to be able to tell my brother where he can vaccinate* my niece but y'know supply is 100% with the government now.
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
Get the vaccine privately. It’s been authorised by the MHRA (according to someone who posted on here - haven’t checked). Why should your mate have a handout from the taxpayer so he can go on holiday?
The optics were obviously terrible but the isolation pilot scheme is not “made up”. I was briefly part of it last week before testing positive myself, I was invited by text and email as a close contact. Seemed a very good idea, PCR test on days 1 and 7 and LFT everyday.
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
Get the vaccine privately. It’s been authorised by the MHRA (according to someone who posted on here - haven’t checked). Why should your mate have a handout from the taxpayer so he can go on holiday?
Fucking stupid post of the day.
Charles is an embarrassment, he's like a caricature of what an 'evil Tory' is like
Good morning one and all. O/t, bas something gone wrong with the BBC site, does anyone know. Seems to be flickering. Tried both on my Mac and on my iPhone!
Fortunately the Guardian is OK, so I can get the mornings news!
Looks OK to me. Try clearing your browser cache.
Seems OK now; odd that it was on two devices, though. Although of course, the same wi-fi.
I fear you have made a serious error if you think you can get "The News" from the Guardian. It's a spiteful left wing rag in the same way the Mail is a spiteful right wing rag. If you want news... Read The Times and ignore all the other news channels, particularly the BBC who has lost its reputation for truth and accuracy.
when was the last time the BBC was untruthful?
Ooof what a question. It depends on your definition. And it depends whether you mean 'leaving out relevant context', 'inaccurate', 'misleading', 'sensationalising' or 'dishonest' - for a start.
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
As others have said, make it available but don't push it in the way it was pushed for over 18s.
Covid: very low risk for children, as far as the evidence shows. Vaccination: very low risk for children, as far as the evidence shows.
So other factors, such as needing a vaccination to go and do things that will enhance the lives of those children come in to play.
Anecdote - as a PhD student I got on a three week field trip to Chile, great. The area was low risk for rabies and I and the other participants decided to skip the course of vaccinations. The uni insurer had other ideas - they'd airlift us out if needed (remote area in Patagonia) but for them us getting jabbed greatly reduced their liabilities for medical/repatriation costs, so we had to get jabbed to go. We, obviously, got jabbed, due to that external factor it was clearly worth it to get to go.
See also this recent segment on C4 News: https://www.channel4.com/news/debate-should-uk-children-be-offered-the-covid-jab The child wants the jab to get back to normal life (and possibly away from over-protective parents, depending on her exact risks!). The prof, who led a study showing very low risk of Covid deaths in children was clearly invited on to argue the opposite view, but doesn't play ball and says let the kids decide (if JVCI say it's safe). I agree.
Hah! The rabies vaccine is the only one that I have ever passed up.
I was given the chance to visit the US government rabies manufacturing BSL4 facility in Athens, Georgia. But I needed to sample their product first…. I passed… delegated that particular trip (as I did with the trip to the chicken shit vaccine facility in North Carolina).
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
What advantages have we actually gained? Are we any more free or open than elsewhere in Europe? It doesn't seem like it
Yes we are. We're the most open nation in Europe.
I don't think that's true - I think Denmark is more open than the UK.
Debateable as it stands, but 100% definitely not the case as of midnight.
In Denmark you can't enter a gym, or attend any organised indoor sport events without a Corona Passport. In the UK you've been able to attend a gym without a Covid passport.
In Denmark you need a Corona Passport to enter restraurants, cafes and bars. You don't in the UK. In Denmark all restaraunts, cafes and bars much close no later than 2am.
In Denmark for massages, haircuts and tattoos etc you must present a Covid Passport. You don't in the UK.
In Denmark you can't enter a museum, amusement park, cinema, venues, zoos, stadiums or other sport venues without a corona passport. You can in the UK.
In Denmark all discos and nightclubs are closed, they will be open tonight in the UK.
In Denmark its illegal to have indoor events and activities of more than 250 people, all such restrictions are being abolished in the UK.
In Denmark a face mask is legally required on public transport. Its not in the UK from tomorrow.
Taking of which, Sweden now seems to be the only EU member not having a 3rd wave, (cases staying at 200-250 a day)
Perhaps, that's just luck and it will start to rise next week, or maybe that's because lots of young people including under 18s had it asymptomatically in the earlier wayvs and therefor have a level of antibody/T Cell immunity, which in conjunction with the Vaccines in the Old and middle-aged.
Anybody else with 17 months hindsight wish we had taken the Swedish approach?
In order to understand “the Swedish approach” you have to understand a bit about Swedish culture. England could never have adopted the Swedish approach, because England (and most of RoW) lacks lots of unusual characteristics of Swedish society.
The first and most important thing that you must learn about Sweden is the heavy bias towards the young. Swedes have a disregard for the upper middle aged and elderly that most other cultures would find utterly shocking. The elderly are *not* regarded as a reservoir of wisdom, automatically deserving respect, even veneration, as in most world cultures. It is not that Swedes dislike older people, it is just that we don’t see them as a group deserving special status. This underlies *everything* about Swedish society, and is probably the reason most foreigners find it difficult to get a grasp on us. They realise we are different, perhaps even odd, but they can’t quite put their finger on it.
Allied to this phenomenon, children and young adults are very highly valued and resources are heavily invested in their welfare and wellbeing.
Further, “the family”, while important, is not the be all and end all of societal structure. And levels of faith are very low by international standards (Scotland and Sweden were the first two countries to consistently measure atheists/agnostics to be in a majority).
Then we have other odd Swedish characteristics, like a strong distrust of melodrama, suspicion of eccentrics and contrarians, a near-unanimous trust in teamwork as a problem solving technique, and remarkable gender equality (feminism is not a characteristic of the left in Sweden; women, and most men, throughout all social groups and all income levels are fundamentalist feminists in a way astonishing to most other cultures). Huge trust in technology, very low population density, small households in low density housing, many single households, very high minimum housing standards, low levels of corruption, a willingness to pay high taxes, high trust in politicians and public bodies, a sane media, etc etc etc
Combine this with an extraordinarily decentralised civil service and political structure, and you might begin to understand our Covid19 response.
We didn’t panic. We acted as a team. We protected the long-term interests of our children and young adults.
It’s not rocket science.
For people interested in the topic, I can recommend this article, which includes a fascinating diagram of world cultures: look how Sweden is way up to the top right (very low resolution and hard to read: better resolution images are available):
Interesting to note that GB is on that map considered closest to . . . Australia and New Zealand. Funny that!
It is an fascinating map for sure. The WVS is an interesting dataset, I have used it in academic research. On a point of clarification though, it looks like we are closest to NZ but closer to Belgium, Switzerland and the US than Australia. Some interesting results in there more broadly... How come everyone has missed the obvious solution to the Northern Ireland problem - give it to Uruguay. As someone with experience of the raw data, I would point out that the variation in opinions within countries is far greater than across countries, and for instance the elderly in two countries often have views more similar to each other than to the young in their own countries. Still, the differences in country means are significant and interesting.
The map illustrates very simply a couple of things; firstly why the EU is unstable inasmuch as it tries gather elements of statehood. Secondly how it is that controversy over migration into GB is not uniform. There is no country close to us on the 'map' whose migrants attract the less favourable attention of the extreme right, or indeed normal people.
BTW Scotland belongs more to Protestant Europe. England less so. Explains a lot.
The conflation of "African-Islamic" as a single block is perhaps questionable.
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
Get the vaccine privately. It’s been authorised by the MHRA (according to someone who posted on here - haven’t checked). Why should your mate have a handout from the taxpayer so he can go on holiday?
Where ? How ? Is there some secret pharmacy that is providing them. I'd love to be able to tell my brother where he can vaccinate* my niece but y'know supply is 100% with the government now.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
I guess it’s a question of personal taste. I think the latter two are often used in jest, while the former is only ever an attack. But these things change over time.
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
Get the vaccine privately. It’s been authorised by the MHRA (according to someone who posted on here - haven’t checked). Why should your mate have a handout from the taxpayer so he can go on holiday?
Too look at it from the other angle, why should the taxpayer not fund jabs for an authorised vaccination for those who want it when that would, likely,* provide a number of benefits and be cost effective for the country as a whole?
*I admit, as I haven't seen detailed research on this, maybe we'll get something in the coming days if the decision is not to offer vaccination. But further breaking chains of infection, bringing infection numbers down, reducing those off work, reducing children missing school (and knock-on effects of parents off work), medical costs for some children/the people they pass it on to... seems like it should be cost-effective, given relatively low vaccination costs. The only counter-argument I can see is that if you ditch isolation in August as planned and in the next school year don't require infected children to be off school unless they are actually sick enough to need to be off school - then I can see that cost/societla benefit could be marginal, perhaps. Or if the modelling says this wave will be near-over due to planned vaccinations/infection before a child vaccination programme would make any significant dent in the numbers.
Regarding holidays and vaccines, surely there is a simple solution - don't go on holiday abroad. Both the UK and the destination country are free (and likely) to change their entry requirements potentially when you can't avoid the consequences.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
Get the vaccine privately. It’s been authorised by the MHRA (according to someone who posted on here - haven’t checked). Why should your mate have a handout from the taxpayer so he can go on holiday?
Where ? How ? Is there some secret pharmacy that is providing them. I'd love to be able to tell my brother where he can vaccinate* my niece but y'know supply is 100% with the government now.
There are more important things for them to spend time on
It's not as though there's a shortage of stock photos of people wearing masks on the tube. And they couldn't be bothered to proof read it. Doesn't exactly have "in touch" written all over it, does it?
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
How many have refused to send little Jonny or little Jessica to school "just in case"?
We've done that a couple of times, a week or so ahead of the school closures last March, and the Xmas bounce.
Oh, well that's a little different. And I told my sister to take her daughter out of school before Christmas. She didn't because child care mattered more than not getting COVID - and I don't mean that in nasty way, it's just the reality of the situation.
There are more important things for them to spend time on
It's not as though there's a shortage of stock photos of people wearing masks on the tube. And they couldn't be bothered to proof read it. Doesn't exactly have "in touch" written all over it, does it?
The proofing is a point.
My assumption is these sort of things just get banged out by a gimp somewhere and not reviewed by anyone experienced
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
So you recognise that he is a liar. That he thinks you are stupid enough to believe what he says. And yet attack people who point out that he is a lying twat.
You like being lied to? Because he's on your side...
You are deliberately missing the point. It's the comments that start with eg the lying fat fornicating fucker... that I saw yesterday.. it adds nothing to the conversation and its just venting of the spleen . I understand people don't like Boris. I don't like him either so don't tell me I am a fan because I am not.
Your frustration is borne out of the fact that the Tories have a massive majority and that the opposition is useless and toothless. With people like Angela Rayner in the top echelon, and Labour fighting itself for the soul of the party , the future isn't bright. . Nor is it orange...
Perhaps - just an idea - people don't like Liar because he is a liar. You say "it adds nothing to the conversation" - I disagree because there are still a stack of people out there who still don't understand that Liar is lying to them even when its brazen and in their face as yesterday was.
Park the opposition, they aren't the point here and I don't support them anyway. Tories should not support a liar because such a man is beneath both their party and the office. Other non-lying non-cheating candidates are available and if the party had any principles they would remove him.
You know why they don't? Because "stop calling Liar a liar, it adds nothing to the conversation".
Calling somebody anything is pointless. If Boris lies say what he is lying about and why that is important. As he lies so much you should have plenty of things to talk about and people can draw their own conclusions.
Covid will likely always be with us now like the flu, the vaccines just make Covid symptoms more like the flu and drastically reduce hospitalisations and deaths from it
"The number of children registering for home education in the UK rose by 75% in the first eight months of the current school year, according to BBC research."
There is no such thing as "registering for home education" when the education is provided at home by parents.
Interesting point. Is there any regulatory oversight for people that "home school" their children? It seems pretty unhealthy to me.
It goes like this... "Home education" covers both "elective HE" where parents educate their children at home and also education at home by the local authority. Nobody knows how many children are in the first category, but they are probably outnumbered by those in the second. The EHE category includes children whose parents have removed them from school, children who have reached the end of one school and not been registered at another, and children who have never been to school. Parents have a statutory duty to ensure their children are educated, which they may fulfil (at their discretion) either by ensuring attendance at school or otherwise. They also have a statutory right to have their children removed from school registers so that they can begin educating them at home. If they are home educating a child who has never been to school there is no obligation to tell the local authority. If a local authority learns that a child is being home educated, they will contact the family and they will probably ask about methods, philosophy, subjects taught, hours of teaching, goals, keeping track of development - that kind of thing. They may well ask to visit and inspect. They have no statutory right to insist on a home visit (unless of course they have reason to believe that the parents aren't fulfilling their responsibility), but bona fide home educators are mostly willing to allow visits, for example annually, so long as terms are made clear beforehand. Even those who don't want visits are usually willing to arrange meetings somewhere else where they will allow chats with the children and show the inspector some of the written work that has been done or let the children show it. It's not necessarily easy for local authorities to know what questions to ask, given that home educators don't have to follow the national curriculum, or indeed have any formal curriculum or timetable (although unstructured "unschooling" or "autonomous education" is quite rare among home educators), but then again private schools don't have to follow the NC either.
It doesn't sound to me as though the BBC even bothered speaking to any of the EHE charities.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
So you recognise that he is a liar. That he thinks you are stupid enough to believe what he says. And yet attack people who point out that he is a lying twat.
You like being lied to? Because he's on your side...
You are deliberately missing the point. It's the comments that start with eg the lying fat fornicating fucker... that I saw yesterday.. it adds nothing to the conversation and its just venting of the spleen . I understand people don't like Boris. I don't like him either so don't tell me I am a fan because I am not.
Your frustration is borne out of the fact that the Tories have a massive majority and that the opposition is useless and toothless. With people like Angela Rayner in the top echelon, and Labour fighting itself for the soul of the party , the future isn't bright. . Nor is it orange...
Perhaps - just an idea - people don't like Liar because he is a liar. You say "it adds nothing to the conversation" - I disagree because there are still a stack of people out there who still don't understand that Liar is lying to them even when its brazen and in their face as yesterday was.
Park the opposition, they aren't the point here and I don't support them anyway. Tories should not support a liar because such a man is beneath both their party and the office. Other non-lying non-cheating candidates are available and if the party had any principles they would remove him.
You know why they don't? Because "stop calling Liar a liar, it adds nothing to the conversation".
Calling somebody anything is pointless. If Boris lies say what he is lying about and why that is important. As he lies so much you should have plenty of things to talk about and people can draw their own conclusions.
He doesn't want to engage in a constructive debate. He wants a warm, snug self-satisfied glow.
Just like the people before him banging on about Bliar.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In a decade's time if Labour are in office there'll be idiotic Tories here calling the PM of the day a Liar in the same way.
Covid will likely always be with us now like the flu, the vaccines just make Covid symptoms more like the flu and drastically reduce hospitalisations and deaths from it
What we have to hope for next is some very effective treatments.
"The number of children registering for home education in the UK rose by 75% in the first eight months of the current school year, according to BBC research."
There is no such thing as "registering for home education" when the education is provided at home by parents.
Interesting point. Is there any regulatory oversight for people that "home school" their children? It seems pretty unhealthy to me.
Apparently there is. A former neighbour, moved about 6 months ago, was home-schooling their two, and apparently not only is there inspection, but, locally anyway, there's a home-schoolers network, where the children themselves can socialise, and parents can share expertise.
Make of that what you will!
I was home schooled for a few years. It worked initially because there was a good local network of parents giving opportunities for socialising and pooling resources to hire teachers where necessary.
When my parents moved to another city that network wasn't there and so after a bit I went back to school. I do remember there being inspections to make sure I was actually being taught. Not sure how rigorous they were since I was a pre-teen so wouldn't have been aware.
As an experience it had pluses and minuses. I think I learnt a lot and was able to explore things that interested me much more. Obviously it helped being a bright kid with educated parents and a stay at home mum. It didn't work for my younger brother who just refused to study. I had a decent enough social life, but missed out on the social learning that you get from being in school every day.
Also, looking back, a lot of the parents in the local home schooling network were... weird. I was home schooled because my parents thought I was wasting my time at school without learning much. Most of the rest were there because of shall we say more... alternative beliefs.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
"The number of children registering for home education in the UK rose by 75% in the first eight months of the current school year, according to BBC research."
There is no such thing as "registering for home education" when the education is provided at home by parents.
Interesting point. Is there any regulatory oversight for people that "home school" their children? It seems pretty unhealthy to me.
Apparently there is. A former neighbour, moved about 6 months ago, was home-schooling their two, and apparently not only is there inspection, but, locally anyway, there's a home-schoolers network, where the children themselves can socialise, and parents can share expertise.
Make of that what you will!
@OldKingCole - trust your sister is keeping safe - there's been an outbreak in Alderney - but like Guernsey it's highly vaccinated:
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
Get the vaccine privately. It’s been authorised by the MHRA (according to someone who posted on here - haven’t checked). Why should your mate have a handout from the taxpayer so he can go on holiday?
Where ? How ? Is there some secret pharmacy that is providing them. I'd love to be able to tell my brother where he can vaccinate* my niece but y'know supply is 100% with the government now.
What advantages have we actually gained? Are we any more free or open than elsewhere in Europe? It doesn't seem like it
Yes we are. We're the most open nation in Europe.
I don't think that's true - I think Denmark is more open than the UK.
Debateable as it stands, but 100% definitely not the case as of midnight.
In Denmark you can't enter a gym, or attend any organised indoor sport events without a Corona Passport. In the UK you've been able to attend a gym without a Covid passport.
In Denmark you need a Corona Passport to enter restraurants, cafes and bars. You don't in the UK. In Denmark all restaraunts, cafes and bars much close no later than 2am.
In Denmark for massages, haircuts and tattoos etc you must present a Covid Passport. You don't in the UK.
In Denmark you can't enter a museum, amusement park, cinema, venues, zoos, stadiums or other sport venues without a corona passport. You can in the UK.
In Denmark all discos and nightclubs are closed, they will be open tonight in the UK.
In Denmark its illegal to have indoor events and activities of more than 250 people, all such restrictions are being abolished in the UK.
In Denmark a face mask is legally required on public transport. Its not in the UK from tomorrow.
Taking of which, Sweden now seems to be the only EU member not having a 3rd wave, (cases staying at 200-250 a day)
Perhaps, that's just luck and it will start to rise next week, or maybe that's because lots of young people including under 18s had it asymptomatically in the earlier wayvs and therefor have a level of antibody/T Cell immunity, which in conjunction with the Vaccines in the Old and middle-aged.
Anybody else with 17 months hindsight wish we had taken the Swedish approach?
In order to understand “the Swedish approach” you have to understand a bit about Swedish culture. England could never have adopted the Swedish approach, because England (and most of RoW) lacks lots of unusual characteristics of Swedish society.
The first and most important thing that you must learn about Sweden is the heavy bias towards the young. Swedes have a disregard for the upper middle aged and elderly that most other cultures would find utterly shocking. The elderly are *not* regarded as a reservoir of wisdom, automatically deserving respect, even veneration, as in most world cultures. It is not that Swedes dislike older people, it is just that we don’t see them as a group deserving special status. This underlies *everything* about Swedish society, and is probably the reason most foreigners find it difficult to get a grasp on us. They realise we are different, perhaps even odd, but they can’t quite put their finger on it.
Allied to this phenomenon, children and young adults are very highly valued and resources are heavily invested in their welfare and wellbeing.
Further, “the family”, while important, is not the be all and end all of societal structure. And levels of faith are very low by international standards (Scotland and Sweden were the first two countries to consistently measure atheists/agnostics to be in a majority).
Then we have other odd Swedish characteristics, like a strong distrust of melodrama, suspicion of eccentrics and contrarians, a near-unanimous trust in teamwork as a problem solving technique, and remarkable gender equality (feminism is not a characteristic of the left in Sweden; women, and most men, throughout all social groups and all income levels are fundamentalist feminists in a way astonishing to most other cultures). Huge trust in technology, very low population density, small households in low density housing, many single households, very high minimum housing standards, low levels of corruption, a willingness to pay high taxes, high trust in politicians and public bodies, a sane media, etc etc etc
Combine this with an extraordinarily decentralised civil service and political structure, and you might begin to understand our Covid19 response.
We didn’t panic. We acted as a team. We protected the long-term interests of our children and young adults.
It’s not rocket science.
For people interested in the topic, I can recommend this article, which includes a fascinating diagram of world cultures: look how Sweden is way up to the top right (very low resolution and hard to read: better resolution images are available):
Interesting to note that GB is on that map considered closest to . . . Australia and New Zealand. Funny that!
It is an fascinating map for sure. The WVS is an interesting dataset, I have used it in academic research. On a point of clarification though, it looks like we are closest to NZ but closer to Belgium, Switzerland and the US than Australia. Some interesting results in there more broadly... How come everyone has missed the obvious solution to the Northern Ireland problem - give it to Uruguay. As someone with experience of the raw data, I would point out that the variation in opinions within countries is far greater than across countries, and for instance the elderly in two countries often have views more similar to each other than to the young in their own countries. Still, the differences in country means are significant and interesting.
I like that suggestion, the bigots of NI would probably be happier on issues like gay marriage, abortion etc in Uruguay than with Great Britain.
Fair point technically that Belgium and Switzerland are a tad closer than Aus. I do wonder though if England, Scotland and Wales were listed separately how they'd appear.
My guess is the English would move marginally towards Australia (marginally because Celts are only about 10% anyway) while the Scots would move closer to Europe.
Would the Scots appear in the English bubble, the Protestant bubble or the Catholic bubble though? My guess much to the irritation probably of most Scots they'd probably be in the Protestant one is my guess.
There are more Catholics in Scotland than England, 15.9% to 9.6% of the population (with 5% of Scots members of other branches of Christianity like the Scottish Episcopal Church or the Free Church of Scotland).
Regarding holidays and vaccines, surely there is a simple solution - don't go on holiday abroad. Both the UK and the destination country are free (and likely) to change their entry requirements potentially when you can't avoid the consequences.
So don't bother this year.
Exactly. When people talk about excercising common sense this is a perfect example
What do people expect. They know the risk. You cannot blame the govt in this case. We don’t plan to go abroad this year.
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
The issue is that the MHRA has approved Pfizer for 12-17 year olds but a different branch of the government thinks it knows better than the regulator. Since the state has got a monopoly on supply it leaves parents and teenagers shit out of luck if they want to get vaccinated. More countries are going to put up the double jab wall for 12-17 year olds as they get to a stage where they can offer it. We can but for some stupid exceptionalist reasons have chose not to. Apparently British kids are completely different to American, Canadian and French ones where the vaccine is available to them.
If I was a parent of a 12-17 year old I'd be absolutely livid right now. I'm not and it's still a stupid decision.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
Is dickhead offensive to men, then? Or wanker offensive to masturbators? Or the F word offensive to people who engage in acts of procreation? I don't really buy the argument that twat or indeed its close relation is offensive to women. In the US where the C word is usually directed at women, and is much less socially acceptable than it is here, you could perhaps make that argument. My wife is a hardcore feminist and uses both words fairly regularly, as do I.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
So you recognise that he is a liar. That he thinks you are stupid enough to believe what he says. And yet attack people who point out that he is a lying twat.
You like being lied to? Because he's on your side...
You are deliberately missing the point. It's the comments that start with eg the lying fat fornicating fucker... that I saw yesterday.. it adds nothing to the conversation and its just venting of the spleen . I understand people don't like Boris. I don't like him either so don't tell me I am a fan because I am not.
Your frustration is borne out of the fact that the Tories have a massive majority and that the opposition is useless and toothless. With people like Angela Rayner in the top echelon, and Labour fighting itself for the soul of the party , the future isn't bright. . Nor is it orange...
Perhaps - just an idea - people don't like Liar because he is a liar. You say "it adds nothing to the conversation" - I disagree because there are still a stack of people out there who still don't understand that Liar is lying to them even when its brazen and in their face as yesterday was.
Park the opposition, they aren't the point here and I don't support them anyway. Tories should not support a liar because such a man is beneath both their party and the office. Other non-lying non-cheating candidates are available and if the party had any principles they would remove him.
You know why they don't? Because "stop calling Liar a liar, it adds nothing to the conversation".
Calling somebody anything is pointless. If Boris lies say what he is lying about and why that is important. As he lies so much you should have plenty of things to talk about and people can draw their own conclusions.
He doesn't want to engage in a constructive debate. He wants a warm, snug self-satisfied glow.
Just like the people before him banging on about Bliar.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In a decade's time if Labour are in office there'll be idiotic Tories here calling the PM of the day a Liar in the same way.
Again, show me Blair lying as egregiously as Johnson did yesterday morning. Blair was and is many things. Johnson is no Blair...
With reference to @DougSeal pointing out that a "cohesive alternative" to the liar is needed, tomorrow could be a pivotal day.
Labour's NEC are meeting and on the agenda is the mass expulsion of the anti-semites and revolutionary marxists. Already the likes of Laura Pillock are ranting about it on Twitter, they know that if passed the Labour Party takes a big step towards electability which is why she is so against it.
My "kick them out" argument upsets a few people arguing that Starmer should appease, but he's tried that and appears to have realised that appeasement only encourages them.
Would you consider rejoining a cleansed Lab party?
1. I've moved on. I realised my politics and theirs had been diverging for a while, and my brief flirt with Corbyn was a result of me desperately trying to find some kind of change to keep me onboard. I didn't actually support Corbyn, I did support changing the narrative 2. Enjoying my LibDem membership. I think we can do something up here in Aberdeenshire. What there is of a local Labour Party appears to be suffering from foaming dog fever 2. Even if I did want to rejoin I am only 1 year into my 5 year ban
Ah oh wow didn't realise you had a ban. But surely that is from the previous administration. A letter to SKS might put everything right.
But yes - I hear your reasons. 'Cept doing well in Aberdeenshire is hardly recompense for forming a national govt...
A relation of my wife's, very able chap, used to very big in the LibDems in that area. Councillor, Election Agent...... not sure at what level. Think he retired a year or so ago now, though and has gone back to orienteering and fell-walking or whatever they call it in Scotland.
"going to the shops"?
From my own experience Aberdeenshire, apart from being a beautiful place, also has a very Liberal spirit, so would be very happy if the Nats and Tories are falling back again...
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
The issue is the double jab walls that are going up all over the world. When we do eventually reopen travel to the US it's almost a certainty that they will require everyone 12+ to be double jabbed. How do families get to Disneyworld? If it was made available privately then that's fair enough but the government has decided that the MHRA is run by idiots and had another body countermand the regulator.
Hi again all, just back for a whinge after some sanity time off the site :-)
My lad tested positive (PCR) last week and has been self-isolating since then, as have I and my partner. The issue is with my partner's daughter, a university student, who was at home with us but left to visit a friend just before my son tested positive. My partner convinced my son not to mention her to Track and Trace, and her daughter has also decided to disregard the ping she received due to her earlier proximity to my lad (they were sitting next to each other on the sofa).
Now my partner's daughter has returned from her visit and is planning to return to her university town by train today (3 different trains, in fact!). She has simply decided that she doesn't want to be cooped up here for a week and would rather be back with her boyfriend and uni friends.
Is it unreasonable for me to be pretty pissed off with this? Or am I overreacting, given that half the country seems to be ignoring the rules in any case?
"There is no a legal requirement..." does nobody proofread anything anymore?
Perfectly acceptable Scottish usage.
Strong Britain, great nation.
Carlotta claims to be Scottish as well but has no clue of the patois, likely never had to mix with the hoi palloi before bolting. Imagine they do not use such language at all Girl private schools.
“If you want a vaccine for your child so bad you should stop complaining and simply fly to Israel or the US to get it done, like any reasonable parent would do” - @Charles
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
I guess it’s a question of personal taste. I think the latter two are often used in jest, while the former is only ever an attack. But these things change over time.
Yeah. Even the C word is often used affectionately by a lot of people. Context is everything.
I see the Scottish Government is focussing on the big issues:
More than half of all Scottish Government staff say they have no intention of using pronouns in their email signatures, according to a recent internal survey.
The rejection comes ahead of a new civil service ‘pronoun pledge initiative’, which aims to “promote diversity and encourage inclusivity within the Scottish Government” by educating and raising awareness of “gender identities and pronoun use across the organisation to create and foster an open culture that is supportive of the LGBTI+ Community”.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
Is dickhead offensive to men, then? Or wanker offensive to masturbators? Or the F word offensive to people who engage in acts of procreation? I don't really buy the argument that twat or indeed its close relation is offensive to women. In the US where the C word is usually directed at women, and is much less socially acceptable than it is here, you could perhaps make that argument. My wife is a hardcore feminist and uses both words fairly regularly, as do I.
As a bisexual girlfriend of mine used to say, don't cal him a cunt, cunts are nice.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
“If you want a vaccine for your child so bad you should stop complaining and simply fly to Israel or the US to get it done, like any reasonable parent would do” - @Charles
My wife and I have decided that if the government makes the same idiotic decision on booster doses for under 40s we're going to Switzerland to get ours done where both of us are eligible (she's a citizen and I'm married to her). The idea of restricting vaccine availablity for people it's approved for use is really very stupid.
JCVI's Anthony Harnden tells @theipaper that people getting 2nd dose of covid vaccine <8wks after their 1st are "definitely less protected against asymptomatic disease".
Govt accused of "communication failure" in failing to get this point across. https://t.co/c4BiSBKdEp
I think most people are more concerned what about symptomatic disease...
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
The issue is the double jab walls that are going up all over the world. When we do eventually reopen travel to the US it's almost a certainty that they will require everyone 12+ to be double jabbed. How do families get to Disneyworld? If it was made available privately then that's fair enough but the government has decided that the MHRA is run by idiots and had another body countermand the regulator.
I'll be honest, I don't know the precise details of the pros and cons of this. Clearly the politicians will at some point have to think about how we view the global travel situation. But on the Disney World point, if we don't vax 12-18 year olds, that's as much of an issue for them as for us. When I went in 2001, I reckon around 50% of the people there were British.
Comments
She is out of the isolation period and generally recovered although she still hasn't properly got senses of smell or taste back.
I have to admit we actually broke the law on this one. She was self isolating with her girlfriend over at their house in Nottingham but then last wednesday she missed the bottom 3 steps on her stairs and fractured her ankle. After treatment we decided it was impractical for her to stay at the house particularly as her partner had to work and so we brought her home on Friday. She took a LF Test before coming back and it was negative but even had it still been positive we would have brought her back. Balance of risks and care.
On topic I agree with you of course. Once Johnson had set himself on the course of refusing to end self isolation for the masses he could never have changed the rules for himself. As it is he appeared to try to do so and so got slaughtered for it quite rightly. He should never have got himself into that position in the first place and even once there should have had the courage to do what was right and say the policy was wrong and would be changed.
They do need to sort out the so called pingdemic.
Apparently there was nothing undertonic about the intended Churchill speech.
Boris has screwed up keeping self isolation for another month.
Where's the Nudge Unit when you need it?
But either way, I think the media have been quite responsible in this area. Even when there were the potential AZ deaths, the media reported them and then moved on. Whilst they've tried to make life difficult for the government, they didn't dare go all anti-vaxxer.
Similarly, I bet some child has died because they caught COVID at school. But the media haven't played the "your endangering our children" card at all.
So I don't think the government needs to worry about not vaccinating kids.
On topic, it's only sad that AIUI, the PM will not be able to answer questions about his observance of the guidelines on Wednesday.
Not that he does answer questions, of course.
There are more important things for them to spend time on
A clear approach on how Brexit will work (or be altered) under him.
A better set of policies on Covid - which should be a running saga - think how Blair would do it.
Clarity on how he would govern with SNP support and red lines, since that is the only likely option.
How he will balance the books.
They are all hard. Politics is hard. Silence won't do. He can't beat Boris by attacking him, we have to know what he would do instead.
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
We have only had two years of the Keystone Cops administration, and there may be no-one and nothing left by the time they finish. But isn't it rivetting viewing watching Boris the Clown's hilarious, and let's face it, dangerous capers.
As it happens I think the jab does more good than harm, which makes it moot. But if the judgement is the opposite, then simply trying to deal with the reservoir alone is unethical.
Make of that what you will!
There is some discreet polygamy at local level - there's a lady in Broxtowe who has been a member of both Labour and Greens for years, and we all shut an eye to it. Another asked me if she could join UKIP as well as Labour because she was pro-redistribution but anti-EU. I discouraged that, but never enquired whether she did.
And Non-independent SAGE have been pushing for children to be vaccinated and we know how much the media love to give them air time. Also so far, everybody has been ok with it as vaccination has gone in age, so although some other countries have started to vaccinate children the position which has been hard yo attack is we go in order of age / risk.
Covid: very low risk for children, as far as the evidence shows.
Vaccination: very low risk for children, as far as the evidence shows.
So other factors, such as needing a vaccination to go and do things that will enhance the lives of those children come in to play.
Anecdote - as a PhD student I got on a three week field trip to Chile, great. The area was low risk for rabies and I and the other participants decided to skip the course of vaccinations. The uni insurer had other ideas - they'd airlift us out if needed (remote area in Patagonia) but for them us getting jabbed greatly reduced their liabilities for medical/repatriation costs, so we had to get jabbed to go. We, obviously, got jabbed, due to that external factor it was clearly worth it to get to go.
See also this recent segment on C4 News:
https://www.channel4.com/news/debate-should-uk-children-be-offered-the-covid-jab
The child wants the jab to get back to normal life (and possibly away from over-protective parents, depending on her exact risks!). The prof, who led a study showing very low risk of Covid deaths in children was clearly invited on to argue the opposite view, but doesn't play ball and says let the kids decide (if JVCI say it's safe). I agree.
More generally IO as a whole is absolutely moving towards combination therapy with checkpoint inhibitors and bispecifics leading the way
Initially felt great - my friends were welcoming! Then I started thinking more rationally and realised that I was Dr Zimsky in The Core dictating notes as the nuclear bomb pinning me down ticked away towards detonation - 'What the fuck am I doing?'
So when the letter arrived refusing my membership application it was a relief. Have just rechecked - refusal is a 2 year ban, not 5. Doesn't matter, we're done. @Taz says I am a little obsessive - you could say the same about me posting a lot about the Tories. I am not a socialist. Once you come out as NAS you don't really fit in Labour/
I don't post a great deal about the LibDems because nationally we aren't doing a lot and this is a betting site that usually reacts to news. Not a lot of breaking news with us, despite the huuuuuge surge back into double figures in the polls. Locally though the party machine is well organised and on it.
Are you sure that isn’t a classified system 😉
Too early to tell, but their case numbers do seem to be declining so makes sense we would see some drop in people in hospital....
Probably worth noting that the rule isn't really a rule as it gets waived depending on who the defector is and the prevailing wind direction. Defection from the Tories has been openly welcomed in the past, and we had one example of someone openly campaigning for some Trot splinter group who then not only is allowed to join the party but gets paid by it to join Jezbollah's inner sanctum.
Question - have the Tories banned by Liar been allowed back? The likes of Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke etc
If Starmer is serious, this is excellent news
Zara Sultana?
Richard Burgon?
John McDonnell who called for lynching a female MP?
* Up to him and her, obvs
https://twitter.com/michaeldenoual/status/1417043124984111108?s=19
I was given the chance to visit the US government rabies manufacturing BSL4 facility in Athens, Georgia. But I needed to sample their product first…. I passed… delegated that particular trip (as I did with the trip to the chicken shit vaccine facility in North Carolina).
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
*I admit, as I haven't seen detailed research on this, maybe we'll get something in the coming days if the decision is not to offer vaccination. But further breaking chains of infection, bringing infection numbers down, reducing those off work, reducing children missing school (and knock-on effects of parents off work), medical costs for some children/the people they pass it on to... seems like it should be cost-effective, given relatively low vaccination costs. The only counter-argument I can see is that if you ditch isolation in August as planned and in the next school year don't require infected children to be off school unless they are actually sick enough to need to be off school - then I can see that cost/societla benefit could be marginal, perhaps. Or if the modelling says this wave will be near-over due to planned vaccinations/infection before a child vaccination programme would make any significant dent in the numbers.
So don't bother this year.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
My assumption is these sort of things just get banged out by a gimp somewhere and not reviewed by anyone experienced
It doesn't sound to me as though the BBC even bothered speaking to any of the EHE charities.
Just like the people before him banging on about Bliar.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In a decade's time if Labour are in office there'll be idiotic Tories here calling the PM of the day a Liar in the same way.
When my parents moved to another city that network wasn't there and so after a bit I went back to school. I do remember there being inspections to make sure I was actually being taught. Not sure how rigorous they were since I was a pre-teen so wouldn't have been aware.
As an experience it had pluses and minuses. I think I learnt a lot and was able to explore things that interested me much more. Obviously it helped being a bright kid with educated parents and a stay at home mum. It didn't work for my younger brother who just refused to study. I had a decent enough social life, but missed out on the social learning that you get from being in school every day.
Also, looking back, a lot of the parents in the local home schooling network were... weird. I was home schooled because my parents thought I was wasting my time at school without learning much. Most of the rest were there because of shall we say more... alternative beliefs.
https://guernseypress.com/news/2021/07/19/alderney-covid-cases-move-past-guernsey/
However the Church of Scotland which makes up 32.4% of the Scottish population is closer to Scandinavian and German Lutheranism than the Church of England which makes up 47% of the English population, at least in terms of nominal adherence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England
What do people expect. They know the risk. You cannot blame the govt in this case. We don’t plan to go abroad this year.
If I was a parent of a 12-17 year old I'd be absolutely livid right now. I'm not and it's still a stupid decision.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
My lad tested positive (PCR) last week and has been self-isolating since then, as have I and my partner. The issue is with my partner's daughter, a university student, who was at home with us but left to visit a friend just before my son tested positive. My partner convinced my son not to mention her to Track and Trace, and her daughter has also decided to disregard the ping she received due to her earlier proximity to my lad (they were sitting next to each other on the sofa).
Now my partner's daughter has returned from her visit and is planning to return to her university town by train today (3 different trains, in fact!). She has simply decided that she doesn't want to be cooped up here for a week and would rather be back with her boyfriend and uni friends.
Is it unreasonable for me to be pretty pissed off with this? Or am I overreacting, given that half the country seems to be ignoring the rules in any case?
e.g. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/feels-normal-weird-time-inside-uk-nightclubs-first-night-back/
More than half of all Scottish Government staff say they have no intention of using pronouns in their email signatures, according to a recent internal survey.
The rejection comes ahead of a new civil service ‘pronoun pledge initiative’, which aims to “promote diversity and encourage inclusivity within the Scottish Government” by educating and raising awareness of “gender identities and pronoun use across the organisation to create and foster an open culture that is supportive of the LGBTI+ Community”.
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,majority-of-scottish-government-civil-servants-say-theyll-never-add-pronouns-to-their-email-signatures#.YPAnjs3ZaFE.twitter
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Govt accused of "communication failure" in failing to get this point across.
https://t.co/c4BiSBKdEp
I think most people are more concerned what about symptomatic disease...