Starmer, not up to it? – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Cleaning out the sewer in the Republican Party will take a lot more than just getting Trump out of the White House.Philip_Thompson said:
Mission Accomplished anyway surely? Should have disbanded upon Biden's inauguration.kle4 said:
Whelp, they're done. Had some good times while it lasted.TheScreamingEagles said:
New brand required.2 -
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.0 -
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.kinabalu said:
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.BluestBlue said:
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.3 -
Surely, the aid should go to those least able to help themselves?Floater said:
I think I would prefer to donate and let the richer nations sort themselves out.rcs1000 said:
Well yes, my point is that sending something that will almost certainly be wasted to the third world is virtue signaling.Floater said:
Other vaccines may be available......rcs1000 said:
But also remember that if you ship the Pfizer vaccine to Uganda, it may end up wasted because of the storage and distribution requirements.Floater said:
AbsolutelyMalmesbury said:
Not a queue. Help the countries that have nothing first.Floater said:
France and Germany go to the back of the queue as Obama once said right?Malmesbury said:
Yes, Ghana after Brazil etc etc.DavidL said:
Why stop there? We want the world to be vaccinated by UK manufactured vaccines developed in this country. And I can see few reasons now why this is not going to happen.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
Personally, I'd sell any excess doses to the highest bidder. You could then donate any profits to CoVax if you so desired.
Assuming we have vaccines suitable for transport to and use / storage in the end location
The situation in Europe is grim, but they have vast medical resources, social safety nets etc
In other countries you have
- no social safety net - so lockdown can mean people starving. To death.
- medical systems with very little capacity. So easily overwhelmed.
etc etc....
0 -
Ok. Let's say we end up taking a view (for whatever reason) that we want to divert some supplies overseas before we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees here - that decision will be more popular with Remainers than Leavers (indisputably) and therefore will (potentially) be a great way to show that Global post Brexit Britain is not going to be the insular, xenophobic, narrowly nationalistic enterprise that many Remainers fear it will be.RobD said:
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.0 -
I would benefit from an explanatory note on that conclusion.Roger said:
Putting a rhetorical 'right?' at the end of your posts which you invariably do makes you sound like a thug.Floater said:
France and Germany go to the back of the queue as Obama once said right?Malmesbury said:
Yes, Ghana after Brazil etc etc.DavidL said:
Why stop there? We want the world to be vaccinated by UK manufactured vaccines developed in this country. And I can see few reasons now why this is not going to happen.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.4 -
I actually think it's offensive to suggest that Leave voters don't want to help others. This government, replete with Leavers, has done a lot to ensure access to the vaccine for developing nations.kinabalu said:
Ok. Let's say we end up taking a view (for whatever reason) that we want to divert some supplies overseas before we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees here - that decision will be more popular with Remainers than Leavers (indisputably) and therefore will (potentially) be a great way to show that Global post Brexit Britain is not going to be the insular, xenophobic, narrowly nationalistic enterprise that many Remainers fear it will be.RobD said:
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.5 -
If only the EU was funding it properly. It was quite galling to see the WHO ask the UK to pause it's vaccine scheme and say nothing about the world's richest countries in Europe doing nothing for the poor.Malmesbury said:
Hence COVAX is about giving away vaccine on a vast scale.kinabalu said:
The essence of soft power means it isn't linked to specific "wins". Hence why it doesn't exist in the "transactional" mindset.MrEd said:
Can you give us an example of how Blair's Government which used exactly this argument or indeed the 0.7% overseas development commitment accrued the UK's soft power?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Not 100m doses in return for an order for 100 armoured personnel carriers - in the style of French foreign aid.1 -
That would be silly, but people pull the same stupidity on Starmer, or Sturgeon, so it's not as though he is being singled out.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.0 -
RochdalePioneers said:
On topic (as I missed the debate earlier) Starmer needed to wage war against the loony left, failed to do so, and self-emasculated himself. He appears to be making tactical decisions and frankly getting them wrong, when instead he needed to be thinking strategically.
I honestly don't see how he recovers the situation. He isn't fully in command of his own party.
He is doing better than Gaitskell in early 1961 - more than 5 years into his leadership - and than Kinnock in mid-1988 - almost 5 years after becoming leader.RochdalePioneers said:On topic (as I missed the debate earlier) Starmer needed to wage war against the loony left, failed to do so, and self-emasculated himself. He appears to be making tactical decisions and frankly getting them wrong, when instead he needed to be thinking strategically.
I honestly don't see how he recovers the situation. He isn't fully in command of his own party.0 -
My understanding is that the program, at least in England, is doing cohorts in parallel. That is, until waiting until cohort x is complete, that when a certain level is reached, cohort x+1 is called up. The idea is to keep the rate of vaccination up - it would otherwise drop off, as you try to reach the last part of group x.EmptyNester said:
I can confirm that I had it yesterday. This was not a last-minute invitation. The doctor who administered it confirmed that they are now working through Group 5 patients by date of birth.Black_Rook said:
One poster (unfortunately I don't remember which one) was quite categorical about being in their late 60s and having been invited - can't recall if they'd actually had the jab or just the appointment, but either way it does look like that's started happening, and we shouldn't be too surprised. The rate of progress is rapid (and may even be increasing, if today's numbers are anything to go by,) and it's not the same everywhere. If a GP has a certain number of doses available and too few patients left in cohort 4 willing and ready to take them, then they're obviously going to move on to cohort 5 straight away.another_richard said:
That's certainly possible as well.alex_ said:
Could also be that some vaccination centres are finding it harder to find people amongst the priority cohorts, and are taking the opportunity (if permitted) to use spare vaccines on second doses.another_richard said:
That's certainly possible.kle4 said:
Might be that more people are now meeting the 'urgent need' or whatever it was calculation - that is, there were some who it was never felt could wait 12 weeks, but could 8 or so.another_richard said:
A big increase in second doses - possible shift in policy with Pfizer supplies at risk ?
I've always expected that the 12 weeks would be a maximum and that they would bring people in from around 8 weeks in case of missed appointments or other difficulties.
Didn't PB have anecdotes of people under 70 now receiving appointments ?3 -
But to major on the scientific argument for a second (which must come far ahead of the political implications here, I hope you'd agree) - the examples of Covid best-practice that Government critics have held up are mostly places like New Zealand and Australia, that have pursued Covid elimination strategies, and then protected their populations with travel restrictions and careful track and trace.kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally for the country and domestically for the Conservatives.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has. I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreigners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Vaccination now gives us a chance to pursue a Covid elimination strategy in the UK. We all know you can't 'half eliminate' Covid, so slowing the UK process down, in order to make what cannot be more than a token improvement in the situation in other countries, would be a dangerous course of action. The one country that may be the exception here is the ROI, which has a small population, with no border in between them and our own people. We can help them, and it might be wise to see if we can integrate them in to our vaccine programme, with the blessing of the EU.
Indeed, far from the fight against Covid globally being about sharing the resources to bat it off a bit, it seems much more about exactly the strategy the UK is pursuing - eliminate it as comprehensively from one area as possible, and move to conquer other areas. Do you have a counter argument based on the science? I'd be really interested to hear it.
1 -
One of the issues they will have is that at some stage the Cion is going to need the good will of the companies it’s insulting.eek said:
Yep - the fact Section 5.4 mentioned the UK doesn't mean the EU get's priority access to the UK manufactured stock that has already been paid for by the UKkle4 said:
Seems keyFloater said:https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1355919449145159680
Nice trolling of the EU
https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1355129141444681730
To a large extent I would quite like AZ to point out that they've breached the confidentiality clause in the contract and so the contract is now invalid and the EU need to renegotiation.
0 -
You don't want the LOTO to be polling super well in a pandemic, means the government is failing.2
-
Doesn't seem to be a popular in the remain minded folks still in the eu judging by their parsimonius contribution to covax....wrong type of remainers maybe?kinabalu said:
Ok. Let's say we end up taking a view (for whatever reason) that we want to divert some supplies overseas before we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees here - that decision will be more popular with Remainers than Leavers (indisputably) and therefore will (potentially) be a great way to show that Global post Brexit Britain is not going to be the insular, xenophobic, narrowly nationalistic enterprise that many Remainers fear it will be.RobD said:
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.
As to distributing vaccines it was you saying only a few days ago that we should be fully vaccinating the elderly in the eu before moving to lower groups here....not the world merely the eu.2 -
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.0 -
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.0 -
Are you sure this is a left-right issue? The policy, I mean, not the rhetoric behind it. We do need to beat this disease across the world because Britain cannot self-isolate from it. Whether we help foreigners because we are do-gooders or banking soft power or because our millionaire donors want to resume business travel and skiing holidays is a secondary question. Britain is not an island. Or rather it is but cannot be treated as such.BluestBlue said:
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.kinabalu said:
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.BluestBlue said:
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.0 -
Fine, Mark, fine. If you are not up for considering something to the great potential benefit of your party, what can I do but leave it. Happy to.MarqueeMark said:
Well shut up then.kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally for the country and domestically for the Conservatives.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has. I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreigners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
@MaxPB agrees with me though. Or at last gets it. He did an excellent post yesterday making a similar (ish) case.0 -
Just what evidence do you have for that allegationkinabalu said:
Ok. Let's say we end up taking a view (for whatever reason) that we want to divert some supplies overseas before we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees here - that decision will be more popular with Remainers than Leavers (indisputably) and therefore will (potentially) be a great way to show that Global post Brexit Britain is not going to be the insular, xenophobic, narrowly nationalistic enterprise that many Remainers fear it will be.RobD said:
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.1 -
As the old phrase goes, nobody wants to live to 100, except 99 year olds...justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
1 -
The EU doesn't actually have much money itself - it's total budget is about the same as Belgium's. Really, we should be criticising EU member states like Germany.MaxPB said:
If only the EU was funding it properly. It was quite galling to see the WHO ask the UK to pause it's vaccine scheme and say nothing about the world's richest countries in Europe doing nothing for the poor.Malmesbury said:
Hence COVAX is about giving away vaccine on a vast scale.kinabalu said:
The essence of soft power means it isn't linked to specific "wins". Hence why it doesn't exist in the "transactional" mindset.MrEd said:
Can you give us an example of how Blair's Government which used exactly this argument or indeed the 0.7% overseas development commitment accrued the UK's soft power?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Not 100m doses in return for an order for 100 armoured personnel carriers - in the style of French foreign aid.1 -
Oh, this is so ridiculous. We don't currently have anywhere near enough supply to make a damned bit of difference to anyone else without - possibly even with - stopping our entire vaccination programme stone dead. Emphasis on dead. The numbers simply don't work - what on earth could the EU or African Union meaningfully do with even a few million doses if we gave them up, never mind the morality of the question?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally for the country and domestically for the Conservatives.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has. I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreigners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
In a few months' time, we will (hopefully) be most of the way through our vaccination, cases and deaths will (double hopefully) have slowed to a trickle, and we will have more doses that we know what to do with. At that point, sharing them out a bit becomes not only possible and meaningful, but obvious and straightforward. That is the way it's going to go, and that is the way it should be.2 -
I don't anyone from any side has come out and said we shouldn't be assisting the world to get vaccinated. The only difference has been the Kinablu side where we stop vaccinating when we have done all over 65s until we have vaccinated other elderly and the more common side which is get all here done firstDecrepiterJohnL said:
Are you sure this is a left-right issue? The policy, I mean, not the rhetoric behind it. We do need to beat this disease across the world because Britain cannot self-isolate from it. Whether we help foreigners because we are do-gooders or banking soft power or because our millionaire donors want to resume business travel and skiing holidays is a secondary question. Britain is not an island. Or rather it is but cannot be treated as such.BluestBlue said:
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.kinabalu said:
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.BluestBlue said:
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.1 -
On the general topic of the UK and vaccine nationalism, this:
"Vaccine protectionism is fundamentally problematic", the UK international trade secretary says.
Liz Truss told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "This is a global problem that needs global solutions and what we want to do is help other countries, including the developing world get the vaccines they need to make sure the whole world is vaccinated."
Marr asks whether the EU vaccine supply shortage and its attempt to control exports of the jab could descend into a trade war.
Truss says: "I'm very pleased that the EU have said that it was a mistake to mention invoking Article 16 and potentially putting a border in Ireland.
"I'm also very pleased that we have had reassurance about our contracted supply.
"What I want to do now is work with fellow trade ministers to keep these supplies open and to move away from the idea of vaccine nationalism and protectionism which we know simply harms our global health efforts and harms our global economy."
We are still none the wiser about when the Government might consider starting to give vaccines away. I would imagine, definitely not before the whole of phase one is completed. After that I suppose they'll make a judgment based on the trajectory of the disease and where available domestic production and supply is at that point.0 -
Well they have form, don't pay their weight for NATO or International Aid.rcs1000 said:
The EU doesn't actually have much money itself - it's total budget is about the same as Belgium's. Really, we should be criticising EU member states like Germany.MaxPB said:
If only the EU was funding it properly. It was quite galling to see the WHO ask the UK to pause it's vaccine scheme and say nothing about the world's richest countries in Europe doing nothing for the poor.Malmesbury said:
Hence COVAX is about giving away vaccine on a vast scale.kinabalu said:
The essence of soft power means it isn't linked to specific "wins". Hence why it doesn't exist in the "transactional" mindset.MrEd said:
Can you give us an example of how Blair's Government which used exactly this argument or indeed the 0.7% overseas development commitment accrued the UK's soft power?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Not 100m doses in return for an order for 100 armoured personnel carriers - in the style of French foreign aid.4 -
I heard a rumour, though hopefully not true, that France pulled away from a big donation to COVAX when the Oxford vaccine and Novavax were chosen by CEPI for the scheme as the two most likely to succeed and easiest to distribute.rcs1000 said:
The EU doesn't actually have much money itself - it's total budget is about the same as Belgium's. Really, we should be criticising EU member states like Germany.MaxPB said:
If only the EU was funding it properly. It was quite galling to see the WHO ask the UK to pause it's vaccine scheme and say nothing about the world's richest countries in Europe doing nothing for the poor.Malmesbury said:
Hence COVAX is about giving away vaccine on a vast scale.kinabalu said:
The essence of soft power means it isn't linked to specific "wins". Hence why it doesn't exist in the "transactional" mindset.MrEd said:
Can you give us an example of how Blair's Government which used exactly this argument or indeed the 0.7% overseas development commitment accrued the UK's soft power?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Not 100m doses in return for an order for 100 armoured personnel carriers - in the style of French foreign aid.
The EU made a €500m donation for "Team Europe" and the rest of the member states add up to just under €250m, it's pitiful. Biden has instructed Congress to set aside $4bn, whib is the same level of donation as the UK.1 -
Well we know how little the French President believes in vaccine science....MaxPB said:
I heard a rumour, though hopefully not true, that France pulled away from a big donation to COVAX when the Oxford vaccine and Novavax were chosen by CEPI for the scheme as the two most likely to succeed and easiest to distribute.rcs1000 said:
The EU doesn't actually have much money itself - it's total budget is about the same as Belgium's. Really, we should be criticising EU member states like Germany.MaxPB said:
If only the EU was funding it properly. It was quite galling to see the WHO ask the UK to pause it's vaccine scheme and say nothing about the world's richest countries in Europe doing nothing for the poor.Malmesbury said:
Hence COVAX is about giving away vaccine on a vast scale.kinabalu said:
The essence of soft power means it isn't linked to specific "wins". Hence why it doesn't exist in the "transactional" mindset.MrEd said:
Can you give us an example of how Blair's Government which used exactly this argument or indeed the 0.7% overseas development commitment accrued the UK's soft power?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Not 100m doses in return for an order for 100 armoured personnel carriers - in the style of French foreign aid.
The EU made a €500m donation for "Team Europe" and the rest of the member states add up to just under €250m, it's pitiful. Biden has instructed Congress to set aside $4bn, whib is the same level of donation as the UK.0 -
The Clinton Project?kle4 said:
Whelp, they're done. Had some good times while it lasted.TheScreamingEagles said:
New brand required.
0 -
kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.0 -
The 'dystopia' here is ending the global epidemic in the shortest time with the smallest risk. But look, I'm not playing on the level of this critique from you. It's lose/lose. Whatever point I make, on any subject, that or something close is your response.Pagan2 said:
You don't want to revisit it because it comes down to folk asking you how many dead brits you are happy to have for your feel good virtue signalling.kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
As always with your principles it relies on others giving up stuff to fund your dystopia
I've agreed to leave it anyway.0 -
Is any opposition party anywhere polling ahead at the moment? It's hard to think of one.
Even the Republicans (as opposed to Trump himself) polled better than expected.0 -
What people seem to overlook about covid is even asymptomatic young people , while not dying, are still ending up with long term lung damage which will impact them probably lifelong1
-
WTF...look at those scenes...
Thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews ignore Covid lockdown rules in Israel to pack onto the streets of Jerusalem for funeral of prominent Rabbi
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9207311/Thousands-ultra-Orthodox-Jews-ignore-Covid-lockdown-rules-Israel-Rabbi-funeral.html0 -
Time_to_Leave said:
As the old phrase goes, nobody wants to live to 100, except 99 year olds...justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Doubtless true of most 99 year olds. I console myself with the knowledge that I have now reached what was the normal male life expectancy in the UK at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in late 1962. Not so far back really!Time_to_Leave said:
As the old phrase goes, nobody wants to live to 100, except 99 year olds...justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.0 -
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
0 -
This is a problem of macroscopic vs microscopic impacts. If the Government has two choices: Option A, which will lead to 10,000 deaths, and Option B which will lead to 5000 (different) deaths, then the rational choice is Option B. But that still sucks on an individual level for the 5000 people who will die, and it's doubtful the fact that 10,000 others would have otherwise died would be much consolation.kinabalu said:
The 'dystopia' here is ending the global epidemic in the shortest time with the smallest risk. But look, I'm not playing on the level of this critique from you. It's lose/lose. Whatever point I make, on any subject, that or something close is your response.Pagan2 said:
You don't want to revisit it because it comes down to folk asking you how many dead brits you are happy to have for your feel good virtue signalling.kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
As always with your principles it relies on others giving up stuff to fund your dystopia
I've agreed to leave it anyway.
It's a similar issue with the A-level results fiasco where going for an overall sensible objective of trying to get grades to broadly match previous years' led to individuals getting screwed over.1 -
On the other hand, we should not completely rule Liverpool out.TheScreamingEagles said:
No Sadio Mane today, our centre backs are our fifth choice centre back and a midfielder.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Dunno about Leeds but the money has been coming for West Ham to beat your lot this afternoon. 7/2 into 11/4 or less.TheScreamingEagles said:It pains me to say this but Dirty Leeds do play some quality football.
Antonio is playing for the spanners, and he loves playing against us.
Liverpool are getting humped today.
Definitely time to lay Liverpool or back West Ham.2 -
That makes total sense. I am guessing, accounting both for that idea and the current rate of progress, that we should be through most of the 65-69s and onto the sixth cohort by the end of February. That's the "At risk" group of people under 65 with relevant co-morbidities, but who aren't considered vulnerable enough to have been asked to shield. They are a much larger category, so people in their early 60s are probably going to be waiting until March to be called up.Malmesbury said:
My understanding is that the program, at least in England, is doing cohorts in parallel. That is, until waiting until cohort x is complete, that when a certain level is reached, cohort x+1 is called up. The idea is to keep the rate of vaccination up - it would otherwise drop off, as you try to reach the last part of group x.EmptyNester said:
I can confirm that I had it yesterday. This was not a last-minute invitation. The doctor who administered it confirmed that they are now working through Group 5 patients by date of birth.Black_Rook said:
One poster (unfortunately I don't remember which one) was quite categorical about being in their late 60s and having been invited - can't recall if they'd actually had the jab or just the appointment, but either way it does look like that's started happening, and we shouldn't be too surprised. The rate of progress is rapid (and may even be increasing, if today's numbers are anything to go by,) and it's not the same everywhere. If a GP has a certain number of doses available and too few patients left in cohort 4 willing and ready to take them, then they're obviously going to move on to cohort 5 straight away.another_richard said:
That's certainly possible as well.alex_ said:
Could also be that some vaccination centres are finding it harder to find people amongst the priority cohorts, and are taking the opportunity (if permitted) to use spare vaccines on second doses.another_richard said:
That's certainly possible.kle4 said:
Might be that more people are now meeting the 'urgent need' or whatever it was calculation - that is, there were some who it was never felt could wait 12 weeks, but could 8 or so.another_richard said:
A big increase in second doses - possible shift in policy with Pfizer supplies at risk ?
I've always expected that the 12 weeks would be a maximum and that they would bring people in from around 8 weeks in case of missed appointments or other difficulties.
Didn't PB have anecdotes of people under 70 now receiving appointments ?
(Caveat: my Mum tells me she has a friend aged 61 who was given an appointment last week, but couldn't make it because the directions to the vaccination centre were wrong. He'll be giving the GP a ring tomorrow to see if they're really that advanced or, more likely, this was a clerical error.)0 -
Time_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I believe such kits are now sent out every two years to people of 55 plus - until 75.Time_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.0 -
It's a nice sentiment, but we just can't do it until we have properly vaccinated everyone over 40, at the very least.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
See the Telegraph stories today, the British variant is so nasty (let's not even think about the SA variant, or others that might come along) we might have to stay in quasi-lockdown in near-perpetuity, unless our vax programme is brilliant and thorough. Put it another way: we have to jab as many as we can, or the economy will collapse. We simply cannot afford to take any other route. London, the motor of the economy, will never recover until we are immunised. That's a loss of 10% GDP right there, and then add in other major cities, all tourism, etc etc
Nightmare.
So we have to get Britain immunised first.
A good analogy is when a plane is in trouble and the oxygen masks come dangling down. The altruistic, Christian reaction is to mask the children first. But you are told No: don't do that, adults must mask themselves first, and then help the kids.
If Britain is in economic ruins because of 2 years of lockdowns, we won't be in a state to help anyone, ever again.
Immunise the UK, then start worrying about the world.3 -
dixiedean said:
Is any opposition party anywhere polling ahead at the moment? It's hard to think of one.
Even the Republicans (as opposed to Trump himself) polled better than expected.
The Republicans are the opposition now surely?0 -
You are definitely a man of strong opinions.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
This may be unfair of me, but my general impression of any person or group labelled (by themselves or others) as 'ultra-orthodox' is that the main point was that they don't care about anything other than following their own rules, no one elses, whatever the consequences.FrancisUrquhart said:WTF...
Thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews ignore Covid lockdown rules in Israel to pack onto the streets of Jerusalem for funeral of prominent Rabbi
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9207311/Thousands-ultra-Orthodox-Jews-ignore-Covid-lockdown-rules-Israel-Rabbi-funeral.html0 -
On 5 live this morning, on their science report, they indicated that there is some evidence covid effects male fertility and that it is advised any male having had covid should ensure that they do not have unprotected sex as their is a chance conception could affect the unbornPagan2 said:What people seem to overlook about covid is even asymptomatic young people , while not dying, are still ending up with long term lung damage which will impact them probably lifelong
That must be very worrying for many0 -
We have been doing so for a few years now, starting at age 60.Time_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.0 -
Yes and many young are on the receiving end which was my point, their lives will be blighted. Fed up of those saying we can give away vaccines when we have done down to 65 / 50 whatever because the young don't die....its not only deathDougSeal said:
Long term lung damage is a symptom.Pagan2 said:What people seem to overlook about covid is even asymptomatic young people , while not dying, are still ending up with long term lung damage which will impact them probably lifelong
0 -
It would be offensive and I'm not saying it. What I'm saying is exactly how I put it. And I agree with what you say here about the government thus far on vaccines.RobD said:
I actually think it's offensive to suggest that Leave voters don't want to help others. This government, replete with Leavers, has done a lot to ensure access to the vaccine for developing nations.kinabalu said:
Ok. Let's say we end up taking a view (for whatever reason) that we want to divert some supplies overseas before we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees here - that decision will be more popular with Remainers than Leavers (indisputably) and therefore will (potentially) be a great way to show that Global post Brexit Britain is not going to be the insular, xenophobic, narrowly nationalistic enterprise that many Remainers fear it will be.RobD said:
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.0 -
Wales, (well, Labour just ahead, but a big decline since the last poll)dixiedean said:Is any opposition party anywhere polling ahead at the moment? It's hard to think of one.
Even the Republicans (as opposed to Trump himself) polled better than expected.0 -
I had them every 2 years until I was 75 and returned them immediatelyTime_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
It is a great prevention scheme, and I just cannot understand Justin's denial of a chance to diagnose such a potential horrible disease at a time that it can be successfully treated0 -
They've been doing it in Scotland, now for 50-74, for about a dozen years (I forget exactly how long). Sent out every 2 years. I know such screenings can be counterintuitive in principle but the4y seem happy enough with this particular one.justin124 said:Time_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I believe such kits are now sent out every two years to people of 55 plus - until 75.Time_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.0 -
One thing I’d throw into the mix is that having helped fund Covax, we ought not to do anything unilateral outside of it and undermine it. That then leads me to ask, which are the Covid vaccines? I know Oxford is one, and I had assumed some of the overseas manufacturing capacity had been set up to provide for it in parallel without needing to directly dip into our own supply chain?kinabalu said:
It would be offensive and I'm not saying it. What I'm saying is exactly how I put it. And I agree with what you say here about the government thus far on vaccines.RobD said:
I actually think it's offensive to suggest that Leave voters don't want to help others. This government, replete with Leavers, has done a lot to ensure access to the vaccine for developing nations.kinabalu said:
Ok. Let's say we end up taking a view (for whatever reason) that we want to divert some supplies overseas before we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees here - that decision will be more popular with Remainers than Leavers (indisputably) and therefore will (potentially) be a great way to show that Global post Brexit Britain is not going to be the insular, xenophobic, narrowly nationalistic enterprise that many Remainers fear it will be.RobD said:
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.
1 -
I now have one.Time_to_Leave said:Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
One of my big hopes for the post-Covid world is we take public health and personal hygiene more seriously.
As someone else has remarked, wearing masks and washing hands isn't just a good defence against Covid but will work against ordinary cold viruses and reduce transmission of influenza and even norovirus.
Economically, reducing the transmission of these viruses and reducing the number of days taken as sick leave must be to everyone's benefit.
3 -
Liverpool 3 upDecrepiterJohnL said:
On the other hand, we should not completely rule Liverpool out.TheScreamingEagles said:
No Sadio Mane today, our centre backs are our fifth choice centre back and a midfielder.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Dunno about Leeds but the money has been coming for West Ham to beat your lot this afternoon. 7/2 into 11/4 or less.TheScreamingEagles said:It pains me to say this but Dirty Leeds do play some quality football.
Antonio is playing for the spanners, and he loves playing against us.
Liverpool are getting humped today.
Definitely time to lay Liverpool or back West Ham.0 -
I'm half Jewish and I don't find that unfair. The Ultra-Orthodox glory in that description in my experience. And they have a proven track record of ignoring the ancient rulings (dating back millennia) that preserving life comes first, before religious rituals.kle4 said:
You are definitely a man of strong opinions.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
This may be unfair of me, but my general impression of any person or group labelled (by themselves or others) as 'ultra-orthodox' is that the main point was that they don't care about anything other than following their own rules, no one elses, whatever the consequences.FrancisUrquhart said:WTF...
Thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews ignore Covid lockdown rules in Israel to pack onto the streets of Jerusalem for funeral of prominent Rabbi
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9207311/Thousands-ultra-Orthodox-Jews-ignore-Covid-lockdown-rules-Israel-Rabbi-funeral.html
0 -
I wasn't talking about now or the very near term. So I don't disagree with a single word of your post apart from the first five.Endillion said:
Oh, this is so ridiculous. We don't currently have anywhere near enough supply to make a damned bit of difference to anyone else without - possibly even with - stopping our entire vaccination programme stone dead. Emphasis on dead. The numbers simply don't work - what on earth could the EU or African Union meaningfully do with even a few million doses if we gave them up, never mind the morality of the question?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally for the country and domestically for the Conservatives.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has. I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreigners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
In a few months' time, we will (hopefully) be most of the way through our vaccination, cases and deaths will (double hopefully) have slowed to a trickle, and we will have more doses that we know what to do with. At that point, sharing them out a bit becomes not only possible and meaningful, but obvious and straightforward. That is the way it's going to go, and that is the way it should be.0 -
Excellent points, and a more aggressive approach to public education and hygiene would also be good - as in WW2. That has been a disappointment in this pandemic.stodge said:
I now have one.Time_to_Leave said:Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
One of my big hopes for the post-Covid world is we take public health and personal hygiene more seriously.
As someone else has remarked, wearing masks and washing hands isn't just a good defence against Covid but will work against ordinary cold viruses and reduce transmission of influenza and even norovirus.
Economically, reducing the transmission of these viruses and reducing the number of days taken as sick leave must be to everyone's benefit.0 -
Fake news, I never tipped that.DecrepiterJohnL said:
On the other hand, we should not completely rule Liverpool out.TheScreamingEagles said:
No Sadio Mane today, our centre backs are our fifth choice centre back and a midfielder.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Dunno about Leeds but the money has been coming for West Ham to beat your lot this afternoon. 7/2 into 11/4 or less.TheScreamingEagles said:It pains me to say this but Dirty Leeds do play some quality football.
Antonio is playing for the spanners, and he loves playing against us.
Liverpool are getting humped today.
Definitely time to lay Liverpool or back West Ham.
Yeah apologies to anyone who followed me in.0 -
Now 2 upBig_G_NorthWales said:
Liverpool 3 upDecrepiterJohnL said:
On the other hand, we should not completely rule Liverpool out.TheScreamingEagles said:
No Sadio Mane today, our centre backs are our fifth choice centre back and a midfielder.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Dunno about Leeds but the money has been coming for West Ham to beat your lot this afternoon. 7/2 into 11/4 or less.TheScreamingEagles said:It pains me to say this but Dirty Leeds do play some quality football.
Antonio is playing for the spanners, and he loves playing against us.
Liverpool are getting humped today.
Definitely time to lay Liverpool or back West Ham.0 -
It’s amazing that now becomes “normal”. I don’t think we’ll soon go back to being happy to be sneezed on on the Tube.Carnyx said:
Excellent points, and a more aggressive approach to public education and hygiene would also be good - as in WW2. That has been a disappointment in this pandemic.stodge said:
I now have one.Time_to_Leave said:Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
One of my big hopes for the post-Covid world is we take public health and personal hygiene more seriously.
As someone else has remarked, wearing masks and washing hands isn't just a good defence against Covid but will work against ordinary cold viruses and reduce transmission of influenza and even norovirus.
Economically, reducing the transmission of these viruses and reducing the number of days taken as sick leave must be to everyone's benefit.
0 -
https://www.who.int/news/item/18-12-2020-covax-announces-additional-deals-to-access-promising-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-plans-global-rollout-starting-q1-2021Time_to_Leave said:
One thing I’d throw into the mix is that having helped fund Covax, we ought not to do anything unilateral outside of it and undermine it. That then leads me to ask, which are the Covid vaccines? I know Oxford is one, and I had assumed some of the overseas manufacturing capacity had been set up to provide for it in parallel without needing to directly dip into our own supply chain?kinabalu said:
It would be offensive and I'm not saying it. What I'm saying is exactly how I put it. And I agree with what you say here about the government thus far on vaccines.RobD said:
I actually think it's offensive to suggest that Leave voters don't want to help others. This government, replete with Leavers, has done a lot to ensure access to the vaccine for developing nations.kinabalu said:
Ok. Let's say we end up taking a view (for whatever reason) that we want to divert some supplies overseas before we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees here - that decision will be more popular with Remainers than Leavers (indisputably) and therefore will (potentially) be a great way to show that Global post Brexit Britain is not going to be the insular, xenophobic, narrowly nationalistic enterprise that many Remainers fear it will be.RobD said:
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.
Already in train - the facilities are being set up round the world.1 -
I'm happy to withdraw those words, but now I really don't understand where your point of difference is from just about everyone else on here.kinabalu said:
I wasn't talking about now or the very near term. So I don't disagree with a single word of your post apart from the first five.Endillion said:
Oh, this is so ridiculous. We don't currently have anywhere near enough supply to make a damned bit of difference to anyone else without - possibly even with - stopping our entire vaccination programme stone dead. Emphasis on dead. The numbers simply don't work - what on earth could the EU or African Union meaningfully do with even a few million doses if we gave them up, never mind the morality of the question?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally for the country and domestically for the Conservatives.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has. I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreigners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
In a few months' time, we will (hopefully) be most of the way through our vaccination, cases and deaths will (double hopefully) have slowed to a trickle, and we will have more doses that we know what to do with. At that point, sharing them out a bit becomes not only possible and meaningful, but obvious and straightforward. That is the way it's going to go, and that is the way it should be.1 -
I never was! Even well before covid.Time_to_Leave said:
It’s amazing that now becomes “normal”. I don’t think we’ll soon go back to being happy to be sneezed on on the Tube.Carnyx said:
Excellent points, and a more aggressive approach to public education and hygiene would also be good - as in WW2. That has been a disappointment in this pandemic.stodge said:
I now have one.Time_to_Leave said:Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
One of my big hopes for the post-Covid world is we take public health and personal hygiene more seriously.
As someone else has remarked, wearing masks and washing hands isn't just a good defence against Covid but will work against ordinary cold viruses and reduce transmission of influenza and even norovirus.
Economically, reducing the transmission of these viruses and reducing the number of days taken as sick leave must be to everyone's benefit.1 -
I for one won’t be going to the office as long as masks are compulsory on public transport.stodge said:
I now have one.Time_to_Leave said:Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
One of my big hopes for the post-Covid world is we take public health and personal hygiene more seriously.
As someone else has remarked, wearing masks and washing hands isn't just a good defence against Covid but will work against ordinary cold viruses and reduce transmission of influenza and even norovirus.
Economically, reducing the transmission of these viruses and reducing the number of days taken as sick leave must be to everyone's benefit.0 -
"Charity begins at home" polls more strongly for Leavers than Remainers. I could probably dig up a link but I'm loathe to. It's not the tack I want to take. We should be moving on from Brexit. Think you yourself have said that a few times.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just what evidence do you have for that allegationkinabalu said:
Ok. Let's say we end up taking a view (for whatever reason) that we want to divert some supplies overseas before we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees here - that decision will be more popular with Remainers than Leavers (indisputably) and therefore will (potentially) be a great way to show that Global post Brexit Britain is not going to be the insular, xenophobic, narrowly nationalistic enterprise that many Remainers fear it will be.RobD said:
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.0 -
Might one inquire if that is because of the masks or because of the implication that the pox is still out and about?tlg86 said:
I for one won’t be going to the office as long as masks are compulsory on public transport.stodge said:
I now have one.Time_to_Leave said:Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
One of my big hopes for the post-Covid world is we take public health and personal hygiene more seriously.
As someone else has remarked, wearing masks and washing hands isn't just a good defence against Covid but will work against ordinary cold viruses and reduce transmission of influenza and even norovirus.
Economically, reducing the transmission of these viruses and reducing the number of days taken as sick leave must be to everyone's benefit.0 -
It's news to me and I'm just 60. Mind you I have only just moved to Wales...Carnyx said:
They've been doing it in Scotland, now for 50-74, for about a dozen years (I forget exactly how long). Sent out every 2 years. I know such screenings can be counterintuitive in principle but the4y seem happy enough with this particular one.justin124 said:Time_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I believe such kits are now sent out every two years to people of 55 plus - until 75.Time_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
0 -
Yes I agree and we do need to move onkinabalu said:
"Charity begins at home" polls more strongly for Leavers than Remainers. I could probably dig up a link but I'm loathe to. It's not the tack I want to take. We should be moving on from Brexit. Think you yourself have said that a few times.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just what evidence do you have for that allegationkinabalu said:
Ok. Let's say we end up taking a view (for whatever reason) that we want to divert some supplies overseas before we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees here - that decision will be more popular with Remainers than Leavers (indisputably) and therefore will (potentially) be a great way to show that Global post Brexit Britain is not going to be the insular, xenophobic, narrowly nationalistic enterprise that many Remainers fear it will be.RobD said:
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.1 -
We are in agreement - I want to donate any excess to third world - Europe can look after themselvesMalmesbury said:
Surely, the aid should go to those least able to help themselves?Floater said:
I think I would prefer to donate and let the richer nations sort themselves out.rcs1000 said:
Well yes, my point is that sending something that will almost certainly be wasted to the third world is virtue signaling.Floater said:
Other vaccines may be available......rcs1000 said:
But also remember that if you ship the Pfizer vaccine to Uganda, it may end up wasted because of the storage and distribution requirements.Floater said:
AbsolutelyMalmesbury said:
Not a queue. Help the countries that have nothing first.Floater said:
France and Germany go to the back of the queue as Obama once said right?Malmesbury said:
Yes, Ghana after Brazil etc etc.DavidL said:
Why stop there? We want the world to be vaccinated by UK manufactured vaccines developed in this country. And I can see few reasons now why this is not going to happen.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
Personally, I'd sell any excess doses to the highest bidder. You could then donate any profits to CoVax if you so desired.
Assuming we have vaccines suitable for transport to and use / storage in the end location
The situation in Europe is grim, but they have vast medical resources, social safety nets etc
In other countries you have
- no social safety net - so lockdown can mean people starving. To death.
- medical systems with very little capacity. So easily overwhelmed.
etc etc....0 -
It must be admitted that the tests have become much easier to do in recent years. The original ones could end up with one looking a bit like a child where chocolate icecream had been on the menu.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I had them every 2 years until I was 75 and returned them immediatelyTime_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
It is a great prevention scheme, and I just cannot understand Justin's denial of a chance to diagnose such a potential horrible disease at a time that it can be successfully treated1 -
Nor metlg86 said:
I for one won’t be going to the office as long as masks are compulsory on public transport.stodge said:
I now have one.Time_to_Leave said:Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
One of my big hopes for the post-Covid world is we take public health and personal hygiene more seriously.
As someone else has remarked, wearing masks and washing hands isn't just a good defence against Covid but will work against ordinary cold viruses and reduce transmission of influenza and even norovirus.
Economically, reducing the transmission of these viruses and reducing the number of days taken as sick leave must be to everyone's benefit.0 -
deleted0
-
It's challenging and aggressive. Don't you think so?kle4 said:
I would benefit from an explanatory note on that conclusion.Roger said:
Putting a rhetorical 'right?' at the end of your posts which you invariably do makes you sound like a thug.Floater said:
France and Germany go to the back of the queue as Obama once said right?Malmesbury said:
Yes, Ghana after Brazil etc etc.DavidL said:
Why stop there? We want the world to be vaccinated by UK manufactured vaccines developed in this country. And I can see few reasons now why this is not going to happen.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.0 -
Russia?dixiedean said:Is any opposition party anywhere polling ahead at the moment? It's hard to think of one.
Even the Republicans (as opposed to Trump himself) polled better than expected.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/31/russian-protests-continue-for-second-weekend-in-support-of-jailed-kremlin-critic-alexei-navalny0 -
Missing that UK contribution?rcs1000 said:
The EU doesn't actually have much money itself - it's total budget is about the same as Belgium's. Really, we should be criticising EU member states like Germany.MaxPB said:
If only the EU was funding it properly. It was quite galling to see the WHO ask the UK to pause it's vaccine scheme and say nothing about the world's richest countries in Europe doing nothing for the poor.Malmesbury said:
Hence COVAX is about giving away vaccine on a vast scale.kinabalu said:
The essence of soft power means it isn't linked to specific "wins". Hence why it doesn't exist in the "transactional" mindset.MrEd said:
Can you give us an example of how Blair's Government which used exactly this argument or indeed the 0.7% overseas development commitment accrued the UK's soft power?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Not 100m doses in return for an order for 100 armoured personnel carriers - in the style of French foreign aid.1 -
Would be worth looking it up and following it up if your 60th b'day came before you registered locally with a GP. The Scottish ones at least come out automatically from the central lab according to birthday. It was a somewhat startling 50th b'day present, the first time ...Daveyboy1961 said:
It's news to me and I'm just 60. Mind you I have only just moved to Wales...Carnyx said:
They've been doing it in Scotland, now for 50-74, for about a dozen years (I forget exactly how long). Sent out every 2 years. I know such screenings can be counterintuitive in principle but the4y seem happy enough with this particular one.justin124 said:Time_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I believe such kits are now sent out every two years to people of 55 plus - until 75.Time_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.0 -
I'm neutral on that. But thank you for explaining.Roger said:
It's challenging and aggressive. Don't you think so?kle4 said:
I would benefit from an explanatory note on that conclusion.Roger said:
Putting a rhetorical 'right?' at the end of your posts which you invariably do makes you sound like a thug.Floater said:
France and Germany go to the back of the queue as Obama once said right?Malmesbury said:
Yes, Ghana after Brazil etc etc.DavidL said:
Why stop there? We want the world to be vaccinated by UK manufactured vaccines developed in this country. And I can see few reasons now why this is not going to happen.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.0 -
Nah, the results of the next elections have already been written. Spoiler: Putin’s mob wins handily.tlg86 said:
Russia?dixiedean said:Is any opposition party anywhere polling ahead at the moment? It's hard to think of one.
Even the Republicans (as opposed to Trump himself) polled better than expected.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/31/russian-protests-continue-for-second-weekend-in-support-of-jailed-kremlin-critic-alexei-navalny
0 -
I keep thinking that Roger can't surprise me with his pompous stupidity anymorekle4 said:
I would benefit from an explanatory note on that conclusion.Roger said:
Putting a rhetorical 'right?' at the end of your posts which you invariably do makes you sound like a thug.Floater said:
France and Germany go to the back of the queue as Obama once said right?Malmesbury said:
Yes, Ghana after Brazil etc etc.DavidL said:
Why stop there? We want the world to be vaccinated by UK manufactured vaccines developed in this country. And I can see few reasons now why this is not going to happen.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
But there he goes again
Tell you what Roger - pull up my last 20 posts and lets see how many "invariably" end in "right"
1 -
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.BluestBlue said:
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.kinabalu said:
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.BluestBlue said:
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.2 -
You can almost hear the gritting of teeth:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/25/world/europe/global-vaccination-population-rate.html
1 -
Say what you like about Russia, and if you live there you can't, but I'm sure they have totally free and fair elections to channel that opposition sentiment.tlg86 said:
Russia?dixiedean said:Is any opposition party anywhere polling ahead at the moment? It's hard to think of one.
Even the Republicans (as opposed to Trump himself) polled better than expected.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/31/russian-protests-continue-for-second-weekend-in-support-of-jailed-kremlin-critic-alexei-navalny1 -
Not a long list of unpopular governments world wide.
How long that will continue remains to be seen.0 -
Masks - absolutely fine with them for the present - but not for trying to stop the spread of colds. I also think it could be dangerous in the long term to stop exposing ourselves to viruses.Carnyx said:
Might one inquire if that is because of the masks or because of the implication that the pox is still out and about?tlg86 said:
I for one won’t be going to the office as long as masks are compulsory on public transport.stodge said:
I now have one.Time_to_Leave said:Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
One of my big hopes for the post-Covid world is we take public health and personal hygiene more seriously.
As someone else has remarked, wearing masks and washing hands isn't just a good defence against Covid but will work against ordinary cold viruses and reduce transmission of influenza and even norovirus.
Economically, reducing the transmission of these viruses and reducing the number of days taken as sick leave must be to everyone's benefit.0 -
They are using CEPI which is Ox/AZ and Novavax as both are easy to store and don't require specialised supply chains.Time_to_Leave said:
One thing I’d throw into the mix is that having helped fund Covax, we ought not to do anything unilateral outside of it and undermine it. That then leads me to ask, which are the Covid vaccines? I know Oxford is one, and I had assumed some of the overseas manufacturing capacity had been set up to provide for it in parallel without needing to directly dip into our own supply chain?kinabalu said:
It would be offensive and I'm not saying it. What I'm saying is exactly how I put it. And I agree with what you say here about the government thus far on vaccines.RobD said:
I actually think it's offensive to suggest that Leave voters don't want to help others. This government, replete with Leavers, has done a lot to ensure access to the vaccine for developing nations.kinabalu said:
Ok. Let's say we end up taking a view (for whatever reason) that we want to divert some supplies overseas before we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees here - that decision will be more popular with Remainers than Leavers (indisputably) and therefore will (potentially) be a great way to show that Global post Brexit Britain is not going to be the insular, xenophobic, narrowly nationalistic enterprise that many Remainers fear it will be.RobD said:
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?kinabalu said:
Or indeed start a little bit before. But I don't want to get bogged down in details or false precision. We don't know how things will develop on rollouts and new variants etc. My point is this is a golden chance to set a "feel tone" for post Brexit Global Britain that is more Remainy than Leavey. And that this will pay political dividends, both internationally and domestically. That's my one and only point. And it's a new point. I haven't made it before. Nobody has.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
I don't want to revisit all that reductive and personalizing "Why do you want to save foreingners before Brits?" stuff again. No good can come of such a debate.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.1 -
As was predicted last week - AZ found a few more in the fridge, though nothing like the 49m the EU was demanding, and the EC would try to play it off as a great vindication of their temper tantrum.williamglenn said:
"See, we totally couldn't have managed to achieve this without trying to start a vaccine war with the UK - despite our dispute being with AZ - in the usual European way, by talking like adults".2 -
It's challenging and aggressive in a weedy, wouldn't say boo to a goose in the real world way imo. Gateway drug to telling people to fuck off (only on the internet naturlich) I suspect.Roger said:
It's challenging and aggressive. Don't you think so?kle4 said:
I would benefit from an explanatory note on that conclusion.Roger said:
Putting a rhetorical 'right?' at the end of your posts which you invariably do makes you sound like a thug.Floater said:
France and Germany go to the back of the queue as Obama once said right?Malmesbury said:
Yes, Ghana after Brazil etc etc.DavidL said:
Why stop there? We want the world to be vaccinated by UK manufactured vaccines developed in this country. And I can see few reasons now why this is not going to happen.Malmesbury said:
Excellent.kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.0 -
Absolutely. You are not just buying yourself more years of life, you are buying out of a huge amount of avoidable pain and fear.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I had them every 2 years until I was 75 and returned them immediatelyTime_to_Leave said:
Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.justin124 said:kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
Not really. I would still feel that I was living in a world to which I did not belong with so many of my contempoaries having passed away etc. I have just passed 66.5 years old - and already feel some sense of that. I recently have received - for the third time since 60 - a Bowel Cancer Testing kit , which - as on the earlier two occasions - I have consigned to the bin. I have resolved not to accept chemotherapy or radiotherapy were either to be recommended. Ditto re Whafirin for a Cardiac condition.Were I 36 or 46, I would doubtless take a different view.kle4 said:
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?justin124 said:
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.FrancisUrquhart said:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1355928314637144070?s=19
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
It is a great prevention scheme, and I just cannot understand Justin's denial of a chance to diagnose such a potential horrible disease at a time that it can be successfully treated
Spookily enough it is 8 years to the day since I was Dxed with stage 3 and a bit bowel cancer. I am now so healthy I can't even get a life insurance uplift, or a rung up the vaccine queue.2 -
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1355946435745886210kle4 said:
As was predicted last week - AZ found a few more in the fridge, though nothing like the 41m the EU was demanding, and the EC would try to play it off as a great vindication of their temper tantrum.williamglenn said:
"See, we totally couldn't have managed to achieve this without trying to start a vaccine war with the UK - despite our dispute being with AZ - in the usual European way, by talking like adults".1 -
Wasn't that the reason AZ rowed back from earlier delivery schedules - to increase their subsequent production capacity?williamglenn said:2 -
I thought Denmark had been doing well?CarlottaVance said:You can almost hear the gritting of teeth:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/25/world/europe/global-vaccination-population-rate.html
In fairness to the EU, some parts are slower than others, but there is little reason to think many of them won't be able to go very fast once they have the supply.0 -
Hey presto! But where from? And from whom?williamglenn said:
0 -
Thanks.tlg86 said:
Masks - absolutely fine with them for the present - but not for trying to stop the spread of colds. I also think it could be dangerous in the long term to stop exposing ourselves to viruses.Carnyx said:
Might one inquire if that is because of the masks or because of the implication that the pox is still out and about?tlg86 said:
I for one won’t be going to the office as long as masks are compulsory on public transport.stodge said:
I now have one.Time_to_Leave said:Do we send out bowl cancer tests as a routine diagnostic tool now? That’s a great bit of public health policy. You have to hope we retain and repurpose a lot of what we’ve built up for Track and Trace and make preventative medicine a real thing. Could be something good to come out of 2020.
One of my big hopes for the post-Covid world is we take public health and personal hygiene more seriously.
As someone else has remarked, wearing masks and washing hands isn't just a good defence against Covid but will work against ordinary cold viruses and reduce transmission of influenza and even norovirus.
Economically, reducing the transmission of these viruses and reducing the number of days taken as sick leave must be to everyone's benefit.0 -
Even he's not buying it!williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1355946435745886210kle4 said:
As was predicted last week - AZ found a few more in the fridge, though nothing like the 41m the EU was demanding, and the EC would try to play it off as a great vindication of their temper tantrum.williamglenn said:
"See, we totally couldn't have managed to achieve this without trying to start a vaccine war with the UK - despite our dispute being with AZ - in the usual European way, by talking like adults".1 -
He's a cretin if he can't get it in his head that no one is getting what they ordered.williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1355946435745886210kle4 said:
As was predicted last week - AZ found a few more in the fridge, though nothing like the 41m the EU was demanding, and the EC would try to play it off as a great vindication of their temper tantrum.williamglenn said:
"See, we totally couldn't have managed to achieve this without trying to start a vaccine war with the UK - despite our dispute being with AZ - in the usual European way, by talking like adults".1 -
I'm in category 9, so I'll get a jab. The last thing I would do is tell under the 50's in this country that they can't be vaccinated until other people around the world have received their vaccines. Imposing sacrifices and risks on other British people makes no ethical sense to me.kinabalu said:
That, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You're seeing "society" as the country we live in. I'm seeing it as the world we live in. This is a genuine difference of perception not of morality. I would be wrong to call you immoral to (potentially) want to prioritize a young fit Brit for vaccination over an elderly Greek. Hence why I don't. Likewise you are wrong to call me immoral to want to (potentially) do the opposite.BluestBlue said:
Unfortunately, this issue cannot help but be personal - it would mean that I, personally, and tens of millions like me would be unprotected for an indefinite period of time while you, personally, are protected and can live your life in a safe and normal way. That's simply not acceptable. It starts with the altruistic principle that the less vulnerable in a society should wait their turn - a social contract which they are now willingly obeying - and abuses it by stretching its finite substance all across the globe. You would be willingly breaking faith with the younger half of your own society for the sake of a theoretical supranational solidarity that exists only in your own mind.kinabalu said:
The 1st para is reductive and personalizing. Back into the old "if you favour higher taxes, why don't you donate to HMRC?" territory. So I will pass on that. But the 2nd, no, I can happily say I disagree in principle. I don't think it should be a fixed objective come what may that we vaccinate every adult in the UK before releasing supply to others. I just do not see it that way for reasons previously explained. I think this comes down to what you and I feel being a citizen of a particular country entails. Which is different. Not enlightened vs less so, I stress, please don't think that. Just different.BluestBlue said:
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?kinabalu said:
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.Richard_Tyndall said:
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.Daveyboy1961 said:OT
The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
There's no word for that position but extreme. It's the bit of left-wing thinking that is simply beyond the pale for me and for most people: it's not enough that we've committed huge sums of money and will gladly offer up millions of our surplus vaccines, we have to sacrifice and suffer personally beyond what we must already for the sake of a fringe sect's idealism.
I'm afraid that it's your position that is immoral. Not enlightened, not just different, but actually immoral.5
This discussion has been closed.