Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The UK set to be the first where people are vaccinated – politicalbetting.com

124»

Comments

  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221
    OnboardG1 said:

    The North East Assembly was meant to be the first step in that, but a certain eggheaded weirdo spent a lot of time organising a campaign to convince people that their interests were best served by people 300 miles away who never liked them. Which has a certain irony about it.
    AKA Dom Cummings won. Again.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221

    Though it's worse now than under Cameron.
    Dave was posh, didn't hide it, and just had an awkward sense of Lord Grantham at the parish Harvest Supper.
    Whereas a lot of the key players in this government have a strong sense of trying to be something they're not.
    Boris, obviously. Gove, convolutedly (and I recognise that he has a story that is hard for him, and makes that hard to shake off). JRM, absurdly. Even young Rishi.
    It's odd, and it can't be good for them.
    Yep. The fact the "popular", "relatable" Chancellor happens to be married to a woman richer than the Queen of England says quite something.

    They cannot be anything but detached.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,295
    O/T

    Icelandic drama The Valhalla Murders on BBC4 atm.
  • OnboardG1 said:

    The North East Assembly was meant to be the first step in that, but a certain eggheaded weirdo spent a lot of time organising a campaign to convince people that their interests were best served by people 300 miles away who never liked them. Which has a certain irony about it.
    On those lines, perhaps he should have started devolution by offering it to the Western Isles first and then the rest of Scotland in stages.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    FFS...u-turn already....and of course the way to keep.covid in check, consistent long term restrictions...but no we can't stick to that.
    It’s not unreasonable to require a revote
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    On those lines, perhaps he should have started devolution by offering it to the Western Isles first and then the rest of Scotland in stages.
    Oh come on, that’s a silly argument. Scotland and the North East have similar populations. If you can show that two large and diverse regions are keen on Devolution you can go into the 2005 election saying “vote for us and we’ll extend this to everyone” which leads to the outcome I think always made sense of a federal UK. Scotland, Wales, NI, London and regions that look like the heptarchy. And if the prospect of the Regional Senator for Mercia standing on the floor of the Lords doesn’t get your pulse racing, you’re probably not as weird as me.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,939
    OnboardG1 said:

    Oh come on, that’s a silly argument. Scotland and the North East have similar populations. If you can show that two large and diverse regions are keen on Devolution you can go into the 2005 election saying “vote for us and we’ll extend this to everyone” which leads to the outcome I think always made sense of a federal UK. Scotland, Wales, NI, London and regions that look like the heptarchy. And if the prospect of the Regional Senator for Mercia standing on the floor of the Lords doesn’t get your pulse racing, you’re probably not as weird as me.
    Scotland is c double the NE. But otherwise yes.
  • A style reminiscent of a certain excitable scrivener that used to haunt these purlieus.

    'Reaching a crescendo of incoherence he screams across the loch:

    “I love Britain more than anywhere else in the world. With all my heart I declare that those of us born here, or who have made a home here by choice, are the luckiest, most blessed of all people. I am British. I will always be British.”'

    https://tinyurl.com/y6gnsnae
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,746
    Carnyx said:



    The legislative grand committee for England already exists de facto with EVEL, does it not?

    EVEL’s another example of damaging tinkering round the edges. It’s not a committee or an assembly it’s a complex set of procedures, in the same chamber, same body, that rightly pissed off everyone else. Even the name is inflammatory.

    It should be something like Mondays & Tuesdays the U.K. Commons meets for U.K. business. Wednesdays & Thursdays the English MPs go somewhere physically different (I think that symbolism is important - Westminster Hall maybe, even put them on a train to York) to discuss the exactly the same issues with exactly the same powers as Cardiff, Holyrood and Stormont. Fridays and weekends back to your constituencies unless something important comes up.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303
    edited November 2020
    OnboardG1 said:

    Oh come on, that’s a silly argument. Scotland and the North East have similar populations. If you can show that two large and diverse regions are keen on Devolution you can go into the 2005 election saying “vote for us and we’ll extend this to everyone” which leads to the outcome I think always made sense of a federal UK. Scotland, Wales, NI, London and regions that look like the heptarchy. And if the prospect of the Regional Senator for Mercia standing on the floor of the Lords doesn’t get your pulse racing, you’re probably not as weird as me.
    If you want to break up England then I see no reason why Scotland should not be divided up as well. Highlands, Lowlands, and Central Belt perhaps?
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221

    A style reminiscent of a certain excitable scrivener that used to haunt these purlieus.

    'Reaching a crescendo of incoherence he screams across the loch:

    “I love Britain more than anywhere else in the world. With all my heart I declare that those of us born here, or who have made a home here by choice, are the luckiest, most blessed of all people. I am British. I will always be British.”'

    https://tinyurl.com/y6gnsnae

    bella caledonia?

    Quasi-Fascist emo-nationalism.

    lol
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,837
    Andy_JS said:

    I agree completely. It's almost as if Blair wanted to annoy the English as much as possible with the way it was done in 1997.
    I don't think Blair gave it any serious thought. Devolution was just a policy whose time had come and the Scottish Labour establishment were wedded to it.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Andy_JS said:

    I agree completely. It's almost as if Blair wanted to annoy the English as much as possible with the way it was done in 1997.
    Blair's main (only) focus was the fortunes of the Labour Party -- so it is a pleasure to see the rogue hoisted by his own petard.

    He took a constitutional settlement that had lasted for centuries (admittedly, it was showing a lot of strain).

    And Blair replaced it with a constitutional settlement that will die long before he will. It will be lucky to last more than a quarter of a century.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    Trump’s marks are beginning to wise up to his “election defense” scam and want their money back. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/trump-donor-election-fraud-sues-money-back
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,480
    LadyG said:

    bella caledonia?

    Quasi-Fascist emo-nationalism.

    lol
    Seems ok and better than ok to me. A bit florid perhaps. It's his haircut isn't it?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,012
    LadyG said:

    bella caledonia?

    Quasi-Fascist emo-nationalism.

    lol
    "Bella Caledonia": Scotch wars

  • I don't think Blair gave it any serious thought. Devolution was just a policy whose time had come and the Scottish Labour establishment were wedded to it.
    Pree-cisely.
    The idea that Blair was a committed devolutionist let alone someone who wanted to rub (specifically) English noses in it is for the birds. Also Scottish and Wesh devolution was in the Labour manifesto that English voters backed in a landslide. Still, it feeds into the rising tenor of English victimhood.
  • LadyG said:

    bella caledonia?

    Quasi-Fascist emo-nationalism.

    lol
    Sounds like your cup of tea.
  • Any way, it’s getting too late for me: play nicely.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,240
    edited November 2020

    I don't think Blair gave it any serious thought. Devolution was just a policy whose time had come and the Scottish Labour establishment were wedded to it.
    After 18 years of hostile Tory rule, there was an inevitable desire for Scottish devolution. It was not forced on an unwilling Scotland by Blair.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,939
    Foxy said:


    After 18 years of hostile Tory rule, there was an inevitable desire for Scottish devolution. It was not forced on an unwilling Scotland by Blair.
    Nor indeed an unwilling England. Was in the manifesto that won a 179 majority.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,383
    Andy_JS said:

    What percentage of the population need to be vaccinated to stop the spread of the virus?

    That's a really interesting question, and it depends on lots of things:

    1. Does this particular vaccine prevent you from spreading the virus, or does it merely make you asymptomatic? The early evidence from Pfizer is reasonably positive: those people who tested positive for CV19 exhibited much lower level of viral shedding than those in the control group.

    2. Which people are you vaccinating? A lonely spinster might come into contact with a dozen people in a month, while a gym going doctor might see hundreds. If you concentrated the vaccine campaign on the people most likely to *spread* the virus, you may well cut transmission faster than if you concentrate on those most likely to die.

    My guess (and it's just a guess) is that front line workers (NHS, care homes) and the most at risk will be vaccinated first. And that once we get to 20 million people vaccinated, then CV19 will begin to die out by itself: sure, there'll be outbreaks in student halls of residence, but the most likely to spread it, and the most likely to die from it, will both be protected.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,939
    RobD said:

    They literally posted a document justifying why each region had a specific level. What more do they want?
    Their constituency exempted?
    Even though polling suggests they won't be particularly thanked.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 831
    RobD said:

    They literally posted a document justifying why each region had a specific level. What more do they want?
    They want the whole problem to magically go away.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,356
    Gaussian said:

    They want the whole problem to magically go away.
    Something I can get on board with.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,480
    Foxy said:


    After 18 years of hostile Tory rule, there was an inevitable desire for Scottish devolution. It was not forced on an unwilling Scotland by Blair.
    "hostile Tory rule"

    I can't see how this might make sense. Conservatives against conservatism?

    18 years of Delusional frothing on your part seems more the mark.

  • dixiedean said:

    Nor indeed an unwilling England. Was in the manifesto that won a 179 majority.
    Curiously, the Tories were keen to focus on the constitution during the 1997 campaign as they saw it as one of Labour's few vulnerabilities.
  • RobD said:

    They literally posted a document justifying why each region had a specific level. What more do they want?
    Welcome to the party that's tired of experts.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,837

    Curiously, the Tories were keen to focus on the constitution during the 1997 campaign as they saw it as one of Labour's few vulnerabilities.
    Also Europe. The Tories did a party political broadcast saying that a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,677
    Just think. All those moderate Tory MPs that Bozo kicked out last year would have been supporting him over the Covid Tiers.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,356

    Welcome to the party that's tired of experts.
    And one that's becoming distrustful of its leadership. There's no strategy at the top.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,939
    edited November 2020

    Also Europe. The Tories did a party political broadcast saying that a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
    They also claimed Blair was a demon eyed Socialist.
    Who had, somewhat mysteriously, also stolen Tory policies...
  • RobD said:

    And one that's becoming distrustful of its leadership. There's no strategy at the top.
    Some of us did warn you all.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,939
    RobD said:

    And one that's becoming distrustful of its leadership. There's no strategy at the top.
    Becoming? Anti-Europe factions have been stirring up distrust of the Tory leadership since Major's day.
    Too late to change that now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,703
    Anyone watching the fight?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,814

    If you want to break up England then I see no reason why Scotland should not be divided up as well. Highlands, Lowlands, and Central Belt perhaps?
    Quite.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,295
    rcs1000 said:

    That's a really interesting question, and it depends on lots of things:

    1. Does this particular vaccine prevent you from spreading the virus, or does it merely make you asymptomatic? The early evidence from Pfizer is reasonably positive: those people who tested positive for CV19 exhibited much lower level of viral shedding than those in the control group.

    2. Which people are you vaccinating? A lonely spinster might come into contact with a dozen people in a month, while a gym going doctor might see hundreds. If you concentrated the vaccine campaign on the people most likely to *spread* the virus, you may well cut transmission faster than if you concentrate on those most likely to die.

    My guess (and it's just a guess) is that front line workers (NHS, care homes) and the most at risk will be vaccinated first. And that once we get to 20 million people vaccinated, then CV19 will begin to die out by itself: sure, there'll be outbreaks in student halls of residence, but the most likely to spread it, and the most likely to die from it, will both be protected.

    Thanks for the reply.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,714
    Interesting article on why the US economy thus far has greatly outperformed other western countries hard hit by coronavirus.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/america-failed-covid-economys-ok-why/617223/
    ... Washington, improbably, has truly distinguished itself with fiscal policy, at least earlier in the year. The U.S. has fewer, stingier, more complicated, and more conditional safety nets available to people than many other advanced economies—less generous “automatic stabilizers,” in economic parlance. But when COVID-19 hit, congressional Democrats negotiated a series of enormous, highly effective temporary stabilizers with Republicans who were ready to go big, among them Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. In the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, Congress provided forgivable loans to small businesses; sent $1,200 checks to most Americans; added gig workers to the unemployment-insurance system; and put a $600 weekly top-up on unemployment checks.

    “We’d never seen such a rapid and massive amount of stimulus being doled out by Congress, ever,” Gregory Daco, an economist at the international forecasting firm Oxford Economics, told me. “Contrast it with what happened in the global financial crisis” that precipitated the Great Recession in 2007. “It took three times longer to get a stimulus package half the size.” Indeed, the U.S. provided fiscal support equivalent to roughly 12 percent of its GDP, data from Moody’s Analytics show, one-third more than Germany and twice as much as the U.K. Other than Australia, no large, wealthy country did more to support its economy...
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,076
    dixiedean said:

    They also claimed Blair was a demon eyed Socialist.
    Who had, somewhat mysteriously, also stolen Tory policies...
    True but not in 1997. Major had a little bit of class.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,837
    eristdoof said:

    True but not in 1997. Major had a little bit of class.
    No, that poster was from 1997.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour,_New_Danger
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,307
    Boris Johnson is going to run out of tiresome and emotive wartime metaphors.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1332819647884824577


  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,240
    Omnium said:

    "hostile Tory rule"

    I can't see how this might make sense. Conservatives against conservatism?

    18 years of Delusional frothing on your part seems more the mark.

    "Hostile Tory rule" I think a fair description of how the majority of Scots felt in the Eighties and nineties, hence the mounting Tory losses at each GE in Scotland, until 1997.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    I don't think Blair gave it any serious thought. Devolution was just a policy whose time had come and the Scottish Labour establishment were wedded to it.

    I don't think Blair gave it any serious thought. Devolution was just a policy whose time had come and the Scottish Labour establishment were wedded to it.
    Tam Dalyell was right all along though.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,814
    edited November 2020
    Thanks @DavidHerdson for a very neat and compelling overview of the current indy debate in the last header.

    It was a clever call that emphasising the transactional benefits of Union is of limited value due to the fact that these can change - but a more fundamental reason for me is that it reinforces a sense of otherness (a bogus one imo) between Scotland and the UK. 'The UK gives us this' 'The UK takes that'. For me, the argument shouldn't be about 'giving', but about the entitlements that we all have, as part of a Union. Scotland isn't getting 'handouts', it's getting its entitlement - and there will no doubt be phases, when oil is riding high again, when Scotland is a net contributor. And that's ok too. Nobody is getting anything they shouldn't. That's what a union is.
  • Consider a 20p coin.

    A small unsubstantial thing of little value.

    But ASDA will currently swap one for a kilo of flour or for 500g of pasta.

    Branded stuff as well and with no problem on the BBE date.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,296
    edited November 2020
    Andy_JS said:

    I agree completely. It's almost as if Blair wanted to annoy the English as much as possible with the way it was done in 1997.
    A Donald Trump quality, conspiracy theory!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,296

    Just think. All those moderate Tory MPs that Bozo kicked out last year would have been supporting him over the Covid Tiers.

    What goes around, comes around.

    It seems that almost all of Johnson's wizard, schoolboy wheezes bite him back, Dick Dastardly style.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    Thanks @DavidHerdson for a very neat and compelling overview of the current indy debate in the last header.

    It was a clever call that emphasising the transactional benefits of Union is of limited value due to the fact that these can change - but a more fundamental reason for me is that it reinforces a sense of otherness (a bogus one imo) between Scotland and the UK. 'The UK gives us this' 'The UK takes that'. For me, the argument shouldn't be about 'giving', but about the entitlements that we all have, as part of a Union. Scotland isn't getting 'handouts', it's getting its entitlement - and there will no doubt be phases, when oil is riding high again, when Scotland is a net contributor. And that's ok too. Nobody is getting anything they shouldn't. That's what a union is.

    That's a genuinely excellent point. Rather than bang on about Scotland being subsidised, emphasise that Scotland gave more than its share during the 80s when the oil was flowing and it's now getting more than its share when it needs it. If the union was defended more in those terms I'd be more inclined to support it. Instead we have shire Tories complaining about the Barnett consequentials and the demanding devolution be reversed. It's entirely the wrong way to approach the situation.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,924
    Dismissed with Prejudice PA
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,240

    Consider a 20p coin.

    A small unsubstantial thing of little value.

    But ASDA will currently swap one for a kilo of flour or for 500g of pasta.

    Branded stuff as well and with no problem on the BBE date.

    Yes, amazing how cheap food is while still in the single market.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    I’m increasingly of the view that it’s probably time for Scotland to go her own way now. English people should wish her well as a friend, neighbour and partner.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,356
    Foxy said:

    Yes, amazing how cheap food is while still in the single market.
    Unless prices go up by an order of magnitude, they are still going to be cheap afterwards.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    Trumpton is cutting an increasingly pathetic figure. Who is advising him? Time for the men in white/grey coats/suits.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,518
    edited November 2020

    Just think. All those moderate Tory MPs that Bozo kicked out last year would have been supporting him over the Covid Tiers.

    Do we have any names ?

    I'm sure Boris would like the image ** of him ruthlessly 'kicking out' people.

    But in reality who did he actually 'kick out' ?

    ** Likewise I'm sure Boris likes the imagery of him being some sort of reborn Thatcher.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    justin124 said:

    Tam Dalyell was right all along though.
    Sure, but unless Scotland becomes independent we will have this divisive dynamic for ever more. Let her go.
  • Foxy said:

    Yes, amazing how cheap food is while still in the single market.
    Yet we're continually told otherwise.
  • Consider a 20p coin.

    A small unsubstantial thing of little value.

    But ASDA will currently swap one for a kilo of flour or for 500g of pasta.

    Branded stuff as well and with no problem on the BBE date.

    I assume that (a) they have overnbought based on the last panic buy period and (b) need to clear it to make room for Christmas.

    Last year their overbought bags of veg were literally free. So 20p is a bit of a rip off
  • RobD said:

    Unless prices go up by an order of magnitude, they are still going to be cheap afterwards.
    Supply and demand. We're about to reduce demand in a period where the pox creates all kinds of off demand spikes. Prices WILL go up. Increased ingredient costs plus tariffs plus added logistics costs = a chunky price rise.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Sure, but unless Scotland becomes independent we will have this divisive dynamic for ever more. Let her go.
    Not really . Even today in the context of Johnson and Covid the polling figures are pretty close. His departure and the benefits from an anti-Covid vaccine could shift the figures quite a bit. Starmer also needs to actively campaign in Scotland. A Labour message of ' A vote for the SNP and Independence would be a betrayal of John Smith, Donald Dewar and Robin Cook' might also reap dividends.
  • I assume that (a) they have overnbought based on the last panic buy period and (b) need to clear it to make room for Christmas.

    Last year their overbought bags of veg were literally free. So 20p is a bit of a rip off
    It seems to be Italian brands they have a lot of.

    Flour and pasta have been getting cheaper and cheaper since the summer.

    ASDA are even flogging Italian gin at half price.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,356

    Supply and demand. We're about to reduce demand in a period where the pox creates all kinds of off demand spikes. Prices WILL go up. Increased ingredient costs plus tariffs plus added logistics costs = a chunky price rise.
    Perhaps, but it won't go up by a factor of ten.
  • justin124 said:

    Not really . Even today in the context of Johnson and Covid the polling figures are pretty close. His departure and the benefits from an anti-Covid vaccine could shift the figures quite a bit. Starmer also needs to actively campaign in Scotland. A Labour message of ' A vote for the SNP and Independence would be a betrayal of John Smith, Donald Dewar and Robin Cook' might also reap dividends.
    From counting dead voters in '79 to vote for the dead in '21: evolution Lab style.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,564
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Icelandic drama The Valhalla Murders on BBC4 atm.

    Sounds more like a problem for Odin than the civil authorities.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,564

    From counting dead voters in '79 to vote for the dead in '21: evolution Lab style.
    The dead don't disappoint us. Or at least they didn't before the last few years.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,564
    It was reported last time around how useful it was for Putin to have someone so prominent claim american elections are rigged, as a deflection from anything he does and to show people that nowhere is truly free. Now millions of americans believe the same thing Trump has probably been more successful for Putin than he could ever have dreamed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,227
    TOPPING said:

    Anyone watching the fight?

    Good work from Joyce, Dubois obviously a problem with his eye. Appalling fitness for a 23 year old boxer though, looked gassed very early.
    Joyce vs Usyk next hopefully
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,564
    Why didn't he provide the proof then?

    Is sadly a question his lickspittles in Congress won't ask.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,564
    edited November 2020
    RobD said:

    They literally posted a document justifying why each region had a specific level. What more do they want?
    They don't want anything, that type. Like any measure where people are simply opposed - for good or bad reasons - they for some reason have to pretend to not have a closed mind by asking for more info (or consultation, depending on the issue), when it is perfectly clear evidence inscribed on stone tablets from Mount Sinai would not persuade.

    If people are ideologically against or feel the evidence does not support certain things, they can just say so without the pretence they will change their minds.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,564

    Thanks @DavidHerdson for a very neat and compelling overview of the current indy debate in the last header.

    It was a clever call that emphasising the transactional benefits of Union is of limited value due to the fact that these can change - but a more fundamental reason for me is that it reinforces a sense of otherness (a bogus one imo) between Scotland and the UK. 'The UK gives us this' 'The UK takes that'. For me, the argument shouldn't be about 'giving', but about the entitlements that we all have, as part of a Union. Scotland isn't getting 'handouts', it's getting its entitlement - and there will no doubt be phases, when oil is riding high again, when Scotland is a net contributor. And that's ok too. Nobody is getting anything they shouldn't. That's what a union is.

    Quite so. As ever an emotional case like that would be more effective. However, I fear the spirit of the times is such that there are not enough messengers to deliver that message or fertile ground to hear it. But hopefully I am wrong.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,675
    rcs1000 said:

    That's a really interesting question, and it depends on lots of things:

    1. Does this particular vaccine prevent you from spreading the virus, or does it merely make you asymptomatic? The early evidence from Pfizer is reasonably positive: those people who tested positive for CV19 exhibited much lower level of viral shedding than those in the control group.

    2. Which people are you vaccinating? A lonely spinster might come into contact with a dozen people in a month, while a gym going doctor might see hundreds. If you concentrated the vaccine campaign on the people most likely to *spread* the virus, you may well cut transmission faster than if you concentrate on those most likely to die.

    My guess (and it's just a guess) is that front line workers (NHS, care homes) and the most at risk will be vaccinated first. And that once we get to 20 million people vaccinated, then CV19 will begin to die out by itself: sure, there'll be outbreaks in student halls of residence, but the most likely to spread it, and the most likely to die from it, will both be protected.

    Yes, that sounds right, and the Government priority is frontline staff first, which is absolutely the correct policy. My only concern is that the Government will push the Oxford vaccine hard because it's bought a lot, it's British, it's cheap and it's easy to deliver - but it's not clear that it works very well. In normal circs we'd wait for the second trial that they're now doing to see if the low dose variant can be verified, but that will take months and it's obviously urgent. But people will be reluctant to be injected, then told it's not very effective and they have to be injected again with something else.

    If we assume the 62% overall figure is correct, and you're offered it, do you take it, or hold out until it's verified or the Pfizer one is available? Probably take it, as 62% is a lot better than nothing, but if people then start relaxing and catching the infection anyway, there will be an anti-vaccine backlash. Genuinely difficult regardless of your politics or attitude to lockdown.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,356
    edited November 2020

    Yes, that sounds right, and the Government priority is frontline staff first, which is absolutely the correct policy. My only concern is that the Government will push the Oxford vaccine hard because it's bought a lot, it's British, it's cheap and it's easy to deliver - but it's not clear that it works very well. In normal circs we'd wait for the second trial that they're now doing to see if the low dose variant can be verified, but that will take months and it's obviously urgent. But people will be reluctant to be injected, then told it's not very effective and they have to be injected again with something else.

    If we assume the 62% overall figure is correct, and you're offered it, do you take it, or hold out until it's verified or the Pfizer one is available? Probably take it, as 62% is a lot better than nothing, but if people then start relaxing and catching the infection anyway, there will be an anti-vaccine backlash. Genuinely difficult regardless of your politics or attitude to lockdown.
    They've bought a lot of many different vaccines, and it sounds as if the Pfizer one is going to be approved first, and as such will be used for the front line staff. And really, it doesn't work very well? I'm not sure why you are taking the lower value as the true estimate for the effectiveness.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,383
    kle4 said:

    Why didn't he provide the proof then?

    Is sadly a question his lickspittles in Congress won't ask.
    Not only did he not provide proof, nor did he provide specific allegations, other than a general complaint that it's just not fair.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,536

    You worry about the pols you can elect or reject and I'll worry about the ones I can.
    I note you haven’t got an answer.
This discussion has been closed.