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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
Excellent.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I'm anticipating the time when there will be a meaningful choice. I think with the uncertainties around rollouts and variants, and the sheer size of the global challenge, that time will likely come. If it doesn't, great.
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?
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.
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.
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?
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.
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.
I believe such kits are now sent out every two years to people of 55 plus - until 75.
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.
It's news to me and I'm just 60. Mind you I have only just moved to Wales...
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 ...
I am intrigued. When was your second fiftieth birthday?
I see that idiot journalism is not just a UK thing. Or German for that matter. Here is the NYT showing those countries in the EU that have been most successful to date in their vaccine rollout - to the extent that they have run out of vaccine now - as taking longer to get to full vaccination than the laggards simply because the idiot journalists are making projections based on just the last week's data.
I see that idiot journalism is not just a UK thing. Or German for that matter. Here is the NYT showing those countries in the EU that have been most successful to date in their vaccine rollout - to the extent that they have run out of vaccine now - as taking longer to get to full vaccination than the laggards simply because the idiot journalists are making projections based on just the last week's data.
It's appalling journalism.
On the positive side, almost all Israelis who wish to be vaccinated, will have been so by early March. *(Their problem is that ultra-religious groups who refuse to socially distance, and aren't keen on vaccinations.)
I see that idiot journalism is not just a UK thing. Or German for that matter. Here is the NYT showing those countries in the EU that have been most successful to date in their vaccine rollout - to the extent that they have run out of vaccine now - as taking longer to get to full vaccination than the laggards simply because the idiot journalists are making projections based on just the last week's data.
I'm sure being a really good journalist is probably hard, but it shouldn't be as hard to be an adequate journalist as some make out, when things that take less than 5 minutes to check would show the premise of a piece makes no sense.
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.
"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".
Six Trump voters on how their views changed over the past four years. Disclaimer: if it hadn't been for Covid, DJT would have been re-elected
Some interesting view there @rcs1000 I think there was a little bit more than just for Covid but there feels like - from that small sample - a third party would draw a good chunk of the GOP base away
Whelp, they're done. Had some good times while it lasted.
New brand required.
Not so. One bad apple is not gonna spoil the Lincoln Project. For something that that 1) LP quickly disowned & condemned; and 2) has occurred and been exposed all across the political-ideological spectrum.
For example, did Anthony Weiner's shenanigans destroy the Democratic Party?
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.
"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".
He's a cretin if he can't get it in his head that no one is getting what they ordered.
This reply from one of the arch-Remainery FBPE lot is equally delusional. Completely whitewashing the other thing that happened on Friday that actually caused the rowing back.
I see that idiot journalism is not just a UK thing. Or German for that matter. Here is the NYT showing those countries in the EU that have been most successful to date in their vaccine rollout - to the extent that they have run out of vaccine now - as taking longer to get to full vaccination than the laggards simply because the idiot journalists are making projections based on just the last week's data.
Indeed - you'd think they'd at least take the effort not to make Britain look good!
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?
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.
First... not criticising (see at the end) I want you to stay safe. But. Very silly not to have used the test kit. I have had it for about 10 years.
And here we are spending money on the health of the nation, all paid by the tax payer... e.g. ME ... and people ignore the chance, and then we will have people complaining about death rates. If the situation was private health then serve people right. But we have a responsibility to our own health if its being paid for by ourselves.
But 3 years ago I had a stroke on holiday. Very lucky to get prompt treatment but I later learned that I had one total blocked carotid artery. I've eaten a lot of fat and salt and sugar and beer in my time. It caught me in the end, and it was my fault... I see that now. I, we, should try to be healthy and strokes are a killer, often a needless killer. We should listen to the health service we pay for.
Whelp, they're done. Had some good times while it lasted.
New brand required.
Not so. One bad apple is not gonna spoil the Lincoln Project. For something that that 1) LP quickly disowned & condemned; and 2) has occurred and been exposed all across the political-ideological spectrum.
For example, did Anthony Weiner's shenanigans destroy the Democratic Party?
Certainly hurtful. But NOT fatal.
Quickly? Appears as though the allegations have been there for weeks.
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.
"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".
He's a cretin if he can't get it in his head that no one is getting what they ordered.
This reply from one of the arch-Remainery FBPE lot is equally delusional. Completely whitewashing the other thing that happened on Friday that actually caused the rowing back.
Quite possible the UK will have a very large fraction done by then.
By the end of March, I would expect cases in the UK to be around 5-700/per day (and maybe a little lower). Hospitalisations will have fallen faster, because it will be the most likely to be hospitalised who will have been vaccinated first.
But we probably won't actually have more doses than we can distribute until the end of April.
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
It's a nice sentiment, but we just can't do it until we have properly vaccinated everyone over 40, at the very least.
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.
Do not disagree. Full steam ahead. Enough to safely reopen our gaff asap. Eyes on that ball - and that prize - right now.
But there is a bigger picture here - and I know you're all over it. It's that this global pandemic really has to be treated holistically if it is to be ended in the shortest time with the lowest risk.
The nightmare scenario is variants arise out of raging spread in poorly protected places and one or more of them are both vaccine resistant AND more infectious and lethal. If this happens it will be like a new pandemic and it's back to square one or perhaps even worse. God, can you imagine.
As things develop we (and I mean all the rich we's) should not take our eye of that ball either.
PS: I see Labour are less aligned with my sentiments than the Cons. Red Walling, I sense.
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.
"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".
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There's still quite a lot of 45-50 year olds in hospital. And also the likelihood of pockets of non-vaccination in older people that will benefit from reduced transmission.
The government will keep going.
If, however, we have a higher rate of supply than we can physically inject (and I suspect that will be a very high number in the end given that we are still building vaccine centres) then in that case there might be an argument for using it elsewhere.
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is a lovely way to see things but not the way the world works. The best model of government (the sort of government you'd want to live under, anyway) is that of a social contract which we as selfish actors (I'm afraid) enter into with the government. The deal is that they look out for their own population, not of the world in general. This isn't quite as greedy and Hobbesian an outlook as it sounds, because a lot of kinds of altruism actually pay for themselves and because there are strong arguments based on efficient resource allocation which say that net benefits are maximised if countries stick to what they know best; but when the chips are down a government is politically and morally obliged to save its own 40 year olds from a slight risk way before it turns its attention to anyone else's 80 year olds. If it thinks different it can try for election on that basis. Come to think about it Corbyn kinda did, with his overt contempt for the UK's Labour client vote poor at the expense of the Palestinians.
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
Excellent.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
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.
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.
Vaccinating people is more "remain" than "leave"? What are you on about?
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.
Just offering that up as an angle, that's all.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, very good questions. I defer to PB experts such as, well too many to name.
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.
"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".
He's a cretin if he can't get it in his head that no one is getting what they ordered.
This reply from one of the arch-Remainery FBPE lot is equally delusional. Completely whitewashing the other thing that happened on Friday that actually caused the rowing back.
Yes indeed. Different situation of course, but it's a bit like wondering what would have happened if the Iranians had not accidentally shot down a plane at the height of tensions with the US over that assassination. In this case, the EU massively screwed up, and it forced them to deescalate in one area, even if they kept things rumbling a bit.
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There's still quite a lot of 45-50 year olds in hospital. And also the likelihood of pockets of non-vaccination in older people that will benefit from reduced transmission.
The government will keep going.
If, however, we have a higher rate of supply than we can physically inject (and I suspect that will be a very high number in the end given that we are still building vaccine centres) then in that case there might be an argument for using it elsewhere.
This is exactly the sort of scenario I am thinking about. There must come a time when the ability to produce vaccine outstrips the ability to deliver jabs. At that point I think it is reasonable to keep on with the increased production and use the excess for whatever target we deem most needy - be it Ireland or Africa.
Six Trump voters on how their views changed over the past four years. Disclaimer: if it hadn't been for Covid, DJT would have been re-elected
Some interesting view there @rcs1000 I think there was a little bit more than just for Covid but there feels like - from that small sample - a third party would draw a good chunk of the GOP base away
Yep - and I suspect that is currently the GOPs biggest concern at the moment. A section of their more "solid" base (i.e. will never vote Democrat) are seeking another party to support and Trump / others could create it.
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.
"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".
He's a cretin if he can't get it in his head that no one is getting what they ordered.
This reply from one of the arch-Remainery FBPE lot is equally delusional. Completely whitewashing the other thing that happened on Friday that actually caused the rowing back.
That's just plain sad. Ignoring that the EU have made all the waves in this process and emphasising the British nature of AZ (sometimes to the point of not mentioning its also Swedish).
Seriously, it's not hard to criticise even our own side if they screw up, trying 'Yeah, it's awful that other commentators are so dumb they got all nationalistic' is weird as a displacement strategy.
Whelp, they're done. Had some good times while it lasted.
New brand required.
Not so. One bad apple is not gonna spoil the Lincoln Project. For something that that 1) LP quickly disowned & condemned; and 2) has occurred and been exposed all across the political-ideological spectrum.
For example, did Anthony Weiner's shenanigans destroy the Democratic Party?
Certainly hurtful. But NOT fatal.
Quickly? Appears as though the allegations have been there for weeks.
Widely publicized? First I heard of it was here on this thred.
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 first
We need to preserve our economy and ergo our health and then we can help the rest of the world that need it. We cannot give stuff away if we don't have any
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
Excellent.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
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.
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.
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.
As always with your principles it relies on others giving up stuff to fund your dystopia
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.
I've agreed to leave it anyway.
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.
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.
Yes, at the risk getting wanky I'd say the 2 big health clashes are - Macro vs Micro, as you say. Example, the one shot policy. And National vs Global. Example, what I've been stressing.
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.
"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".
He's a cretin if he can't get it in his head that no one is getting what they ordered.
This reply from one of the arch-Remainery FBPE lot is equally delusional. Completely whitewashing the other thing that happened on Friday that actually caused the rowing back.
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
It's a nice sentiment, but we just can't do it until we have properly vaccinated everyone over 40, at the very least.
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.
We've just jabbed more than 1% of the entire UK adult population in a single day. Let's hope we can keep this up.
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?
Yes and I would presume are polling worse than Democrats. Can't find a poll on 538, but Biden approval is +20%.
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.
"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".
He's a cretin if he can't get it in his head that no one is getting what they ordered.
This reply from one of the arch-Remainery FBPE lot is equally delusional. Completely whitewashing the other thing that happened on Friday that actually caused the rowing back.
That's just plain sad. Ignoring that the EU have made all the waves in this process and emphasising the British nature of AZ (sometimes to the point of not mentioning its also Swedish).
Seriously, it's not hard to criticise even our own side if they screw up, trying 'Yeah, it's awful that other commentators are so dumb they got all nationalistic' is weird as a displacement strategy.
He is only a tweet away from "no tanks in Baghdad".....
Whelp, they're done. Had some good times while it lasted.
New brand required.
Not so. One bad apple is not gonna spoil the Lincoln Project. For something that that 1) LP quickly disowned & condemned; and 2) has occurred and been exposed all across the political-ideological spectrum.
For example, did Anthony Weiner's shenanigans destroy the Democratic Party?
Certainly hurtful. But NOT fatal.
You know who comes out of this well?
The NYTimes.
After the last couple of weeks, I didn't think I'd say anything nice about the NYT, but good job guys.
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?
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.
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.
5..4...3..2..1...people on twitter complaining Boris hasn't tweeted.
I wish the gentleman well - though have no wish to live to that age myself.
Not even depending on your physical and mental state?
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.
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.
I believe such kits are now sent out every two years to people of 55 plus - until 75.
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.
It's news to me and I'm just 60. Mind you I have only just moved to Wales...
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 first
We need to preserve our economy and ergo our health and then we can help the rest of the world that need it. We cannot give stuff away if we don't have any
Precisely and also we need to preserve the link government respects its people and works for them, people respect their government and work for them
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
It's a nice sentiment, but we just can't do it until we have properly vaccinated everyone over 40, at the very least.
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.
We've just jabbed more than 1% of the entire UK adult population in a single day. Let's hope we can keep this up.
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is a lovely way to see things but not the way the world works. The best model of government (the sort of government you'd want to live under, anyway) is that of a social contract which we as selfish actors (I'm afraid) enter into with the government. The deal is that they look out for their own population, not of the world in general. This isn't quite as greedy and Hobbesian an outlook as it sounds, because a lot of kinds of altruism actually pay for themselves and because there are strong arguments based on efficient resource allocation which say that net benefits are maximised if countries stick to what they know best; but when the chips are down a government is politically and morally obliged to save its own 40 year olds from a slight risk way before it turns its attention to anyone else's 80 year olds. If it thinks different it can try for election on that basis. Come to think about it Corbyn kinda did, with his overt contempt for the UK's Labour client vote poor at the expense of the Palestinians.
You've forced me to lavish praise upon you - perfectly put.
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.
"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".
He's a cretin if he can't get it in his head that no one is getting what they ordered.
This reply from one of the arch-Remainery FBPE lot is equally delusional. Completely whitewashing the other thing that happened on Friday that actually caused the rowing back.
You see it just as much on the “other side” of course, but “my side is always right and your side is always wrong” is more or less the most depressing attitude there is.
You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
So, it's entirely possible it will be approved in time. However, given that the Russians are unable to vaccinate their own population at any reasonable pace, I'd be sceptical of supplies.
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.....
Messrs Johnson and Gove are making their political capital by remaining cool, calm, collected, professional and adult.
Random plebs on a message board might be ecstatic, but they aren't the ones who are responsible for dealing with the situation.
Why it is overwhelming German officials that are having total meltdowns?
Merkel losing it? Or because she's on the way out, others are competing to make their names? Bloomberg did say it was Germany and France pushing the Commission to take the stance it has.
You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
Also...
Vaccine production is going to keep doubling and doubling again. The period of time between "oh, we've got 50 and up covered" and "oh, we've got everyone covered" is going to be about six weeks. And at that time, vaccines aren't going to be scarce worldwide either.
This is, shall we say, brave. Glad they’re going first but I think if this sort of thing doesn’t end as catastrophically as I fear it might then pressure elsewhere for easing will grow.
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But it does to me. Depending on the circumstances of course. If Covid is raging in certain countries the priority for vaccination should imo be there rather than in putting the finishing touches to the response in countries where it is under control. This gives the best overall result too. To NOT do that makes neither practical nor ethical sense to me. But at heart it's just a difference of perspective.
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.
'First... not criticising (see at the end) I want you to stay safe. But. Very silly not to have used the test kit. I have had it for about 10 years.
And here we are spending money on the health of the nation, all paid by the tax payer... e.g. ME ... and people ignore the chance, and then we will have people complaining about death rates. If the situation was private health then serve people right. But we have a responsibility to our own health if its being paid for by ourselves.
But 3 years ago I had a stroke on holiday. Very lucky to get prompt treatment but I later learned that I had one total blocked carotid artery. I've eaten a lot of fat and salt and sugar and beer in my time. It caught me in the end, and it was my fault... I see that now. I, we, should try to be healthy and strokes are a killer, often a needless killer. We should listen to the health service we pay for.'
It is also a matter of how long a life one wishes for! Some people have no desire to reach the age of 100 - or even 90. It is possible to be content with the lifespan already lived - and to be grateful for that whilst also being mindful of those who have passed away so much younger. Not everbody fears 'death'. I don't myself - and have not done so for a good few years.There is a spiritual aspect to my attitude - in terms of belief and evidence as to what lies beyond this physical mortal coil. Beyond that though, I am rather drawn to the past by inclination - rather than looking forward to a world I will not be part of. When I contemplate so many family members, friends and acquaintances - or the political and media personalties so often discussed here and still to be seen on broadacsts of Election programmes from decades past - or the cast list of much loved TV programmes such as 'Dads Army' and 'Yes Minister' - there is one inescapable truth that strikes out at me - ie that virtually all these people are now dead! Joining them really holds no fears for me.
You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
No offence but I made EXACTLY this analogy about half an hour ago.
You are skim-reading my comments. I am deeply hurt.
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're a sensible person with a functioning moral compass, not one that points in all directions other than home.
Routine bowel screening seems to have ground to a halt for now. My husband should have received a kit in September. They used to arrive very promptly every two years.
You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
No offence but I made EXACTLY this analogy about half an hour ago.
You are skim-reading my comments. I am deeply hurt.
People like to hear things from a lawyer. As a non-lawyer, I find people often just feel more comfortable that way, even if they are just confirming what I said
You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
No offence but I made EXACTLY this analogy about half an hour ago.
You are skim-reading my comments. I am deeply hurt.
I really didn't but apologies none the less. I have just finished my roast beef with wild garlic which was excellent and have not caught up with the thread.
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But it does to me. Depending on the circumstances of course. If Covid is raging in certain countries the priority for vaccination should imo be there rather than in putting the finishing touches to the response in countries where it is under control. This gives the best overall result too. To NOT do that makes neither practical nor ethical sense to me. But at heart it's just a difference of perspective.
Have you had your jab? I am guessing yes as you are a pensioner....how easy it is to give away the jabs of others when you have nothing to lose
You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
Although it does also say that you should help children first before putting on your own. Whether you could count other countries as being like children is a debatable point.
Well, Husband in Royal Free having tests ....... 😨
Hopefully, he'll be sent home soon and will spend next few years moaning at me about having ruined his Sunday afternoon. But will take that if it means he's OK.
You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
No offence but I made EXACTLY this analogy about half an hour ago.
You are skim-reading my comments. I am deeply hurt.
I really didn't but apologies none the less. I have just finished my roast beef with wild garlic which was excellent and have not caught up with the thread.
Edit Blimey so you did. That's weird.
lol. No drama. I am now going to do my HIIT workout and then have sea bass in ginger and soy....
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is a lovely way to see things but not the way the world works. The best model of government (the sort of government you'd want to live under, anyway) is that of a social contract which we as selfish actors (I'm afraid) enter into with the government. The deal is that they look out for their own population, not of the world in general. This isn't quite as greedy and Hobbesian an outlook as it sounds, because a lot of kinds of altruism actually pay for themselves and because there are strong arguments based on efficient resource allocation which say that net benefits are maximised if countries stick to what they know best; but when the chips are down a government is politically and morally obliged to save its own 40 year olds from a slight risk way before it turns its attention to anyone else's 80 year olds. If it thinks different it can try for election on that basis. Come to think about it Corbyn kinda did, with his overt contempt for the UK's Labour client vote poor at the expense of the Palestinians.
You've forced me to lavish praise upon you - perfectly put.
Thank you! Who could begrudge a like for that comment?
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.....
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.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But it does to me. Depending on the circumstances of course. If Covid is raging in certain countries the priority for vaccination should imo be there rather than in putting the finishing touches to the response in countries where it is under control. This gives the best overall result too. To NOT do that makes neither practical nor ethical sense to me. But at heart it's just a difference of perspective.
No it doesn't give the best overall result.
The best overall result is to put out the fire in this country, stamp it out so it can't restart and be able to put good effort into helping everyone else.
Not do a half-arsed job, stay locked down and flaring back up and not be able to give our best efforts to anyone else.
You know when you go on a plane (if you can remember back that far) and there is that really boring bit where they try to pretend that if the aircraft comes down you are not necessarily going to be spread over a square mile? Most people don't hear a word of it but being a lawyer and a bit of a sad case I actually listened in occasionally.
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
You're the second poster to use the analogy, and I think it's apposite. We need to keep going until this country is no longer a Covid factory. That means using vaccination to eliminate the disease, not just take pressure off the death numbers.
Well, Husband in Royal Free having tests ....... 😨
Hopefully, he'll be sent home soon and will spend next few years moaning at me about having ruined his Sunday afternoon. But will take that if it means he's OK.
Well, Husband in Royal Free having tests ....... 😨
Hopefully, he'll be sent home soon and will spend next few years moaning at me about having ruined his Sunday afternoon. But will take that if it means he's OK.
Well, Husband in Royal Free having tests ....... 😨
Hopefully, he'll be sent home soon and will spend next few years moaning at me about having ruined his Sunday afternoon. But will take that if it means he's OK.
Just thinking more about Captain Tom...it is going to be a really sad series of events if he missed his jab slot because he went on the BA freebie to Barbados (while I have been super critical of the Instagram Yachters travel, nobody can begrudge a 99 year old getting his bucket list wish)...and then he picked up pneumonia or covid on his travels and because he was sick they can't vaccinate him.
I forget what it was, but I read a novel last year where there had been an election for President of Europe, and it was won by the King of the UK (might have just been England) on the basis that if you wanted a mostly ceremonial president to open things and make small talk with dignitaries, why not go for someone who has so much experience?
Comments
(1) https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/anti-vaccine-mob-dodger-stadium-covid-coronavirus.html
Yep, apparently if you get a vaccine you become a slave of Bill Gates.
(2) https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/six-trump-voters-on-what-they-learned-from-the-past-four-years.html
Six Trump voters on how their views changed over the past four years. Disclaimer: if it hadn't been for Covid, DJT would have been re-elected
On the positive side, almost all Israelis who wish to be vaccinated, will have been so by early March. *(Their problem is that ultra-religious groups who refuse to socially distance, and aren't keen on vaccinations.)
Of course, as the AZN vaccine doesn't work, they'll be donating all these doses to Covax, right?
https://twitter.com/MSNFrance/status/1355946806027317248
For example, did Anthony Weiner's shenanigans destroy the Democratic Party?
Certainly hurtful. But NOT fatal.
What will happen when/if AZ fail to deliver again?
https://twitter.com/APHClarkson/status/1355946862784770052
But. Very silly not to have used the test kit. I have had it for about 10 years.
And here we are spending money on the health of the nation, all paid by the tax payer... e.g. ME ... and people ignore the chance, and then we will have people complaining about death rates.
If the situation was private health then serve people right. But we have a responsibility to our own health if its being paid for by ourselves.
But 3 years ago I had a stroke on holiday. Very lucky to get prompt treatment but I later learned that I had one total blocked carotid artery. I've eaten a lot of fat and salt and sugar and beer in my time. It caught me in the end, and it was my fault... I see that now. I, we, should try to be healthy and strokes are a killer, often a needless killer.
We should listen to the health service we pay for.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1355948025408057351
But we probably won't actually have more doses than we can distribute until the end of April.
But there is a bigger picture here - and I know you're all over it. It's that this global pandemic really has to be treated holistically if it is to be ended in the shortest time with the lowest risk.
The nightmare scenario is variants arise out of raging spread in poorly protected places and one or more of them are both vaccine resistant AND more infectious and lethal. If this happens it will be like a new pandemic and it's back to square one or perhaps even worse. God, can you imagine.
As things develop we (and I mean all the rich we's) should not take our eye of that ball either.
PS: I see Labour are less aligned with my sentiments than the Cons. Red Walling, I sense.
The government will keep going.
If, however, we have a higher rate of supply than we can physically inject (and I suspect that will be a very high number in the end given that we are still building vaccine centres) then in that case there might be an argument for using it elsewhere.
You describe SKS as a “successful” former DPP. Can you tell us on what basis you are measuring success?
https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1355951994326953985?s=20
Seriously, it's not hard to criticise even our own side if they screw up, trying 'Yeah, it's awful that other commentators are so dumb they got all nationalistic' is weird as a displacement strategy.
Macro vs Micro, as you say. Example, the one shot policy.
And National vs Global. Example, what I've been stressing.
https://twitter.com/dwnews/status/1355871202825228288
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1355915904312365060?s=20
598,389 out of about 52 million adults.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55881092
The NYTimes.
After the last couple of weeks, I didn't think I'd say anything nice about the NYT, but good job guys.
Talking about the Capitol rioters:
".... killed a police officer and injured dozens, trampled a woman to death and caused three additional deaths, not counting two additional officers who later died by suicide."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/31/donald-trumps-impeachment-defence-in-disarray-as-lead-lawyers-quit-reports?fbclid=IwAR1CehP2UcP54onJss7YTtIsVkHv0UmcdVwKQoQOxsxIjrJaiX4QqNDK8Tw
Didn't know about the suicides.
It's "elongate the muskrat"
One of the bits that sticks in my mind is that if there is a loss of pressure then these masks with oxygen will come down from above. The loud and clear message is that you firstly fix your own mask and only then do you help anyone else because you can then operate effectively and not pass out or something boring.
That's how I see vaccination. We need to eliminate this dreadful disease to the point we can operate vaguely normally again and have an economy worth a damn. Once we have sufficient people in this country vaccinated that we can operate effectively we can start to worry about others (which we should). So the WHO are wrong to suggest we vaccinate those who are most at risk and then think of others. At that point we can't operate effectively. We need to ensure our society is clear and ready to go back to work and then we need to do as much as we can to help others in distress. Then, not before.
"Philip, this is important. All those times when you've had to be polite? Well, for the next five minutes, you can vent..."
So, it's entirely possible it will be approved in time. However, given that the Russians are unable to vaccinate their own population at any reasonable pace, I'd be sceptical of supplies.
Random plebs on a message board might be ecstatic, but they aren't the ones who are responsible for dealing with the situation.
Good evening, everyone.
Vaccine production is going to keep doubling and doubling again. The period of time between "oh, we've got 50 and up covered" and "oh, we've got everyone covered" is going to be about six weeks. And at that time, vaccines aren't going to be scarce worldwide either.
I expect most pb-ers can ease themselves over it.
To a slightly less imminent extent, Macron too.
https://twitter.com/Gothamist/status/1355313803697807363
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.
'First... not criticising (see at the end) I want you to stay safe.
But. Very silly not to have used the test kit. I have had it for about 10 years.
And here we are spending money on the health of the nation, all paid by the tax payer... e.g. ME ... and people ignore the chance, and then we will have people complaining about death rates.
If the situation was private health then serve people right. But we have a responsibility to our own health if its being paid for by ourselves.
But 3 years ago I had a stroke on holiday. Very lucky to get prompt treatment but I later learned that I had one total blocked carotid artery. I've eaten a lot of fat and salt and sugar and beer in my time. It caught me in the end, and it was my fault... I see that now. I, we, should try to be healthy and strokes are a killer, often a needless killer.
We should listen to the health service we pay for.'
It is also a matter of how long a life one wishes for! Some people have no desire to reach the age of 100 - or even 90. It is possible to be content with the lifespan already lived - and to be grateful for that whilst also being mindful of those who have passed away so much younger. Not everbody fears 'death'. I don't myself - and have not done so for a good few years.There is a spiritual aspect to my attitude - in terms of belief and evidence as to what lies beyond this physical mortal coil. Beyond that though, I am rather drawn to the past by inclination - rather than looking forward to a world I will not be part of.
When I contemplate so many family members, friends and acquaintances - or the political and media personalties so often discussed here and still to be seen on broadacsts of Election programmes from decades past - or the cast list of much loved TV programmes such as 'Dads Army' and 'Yes Minister' - there is one inescapable truth that strikes out at me - ie that virtually all these people are now dead! Joining them really holds no fears for me.
And sadly NOT part of your "in(ternet) crowd" for which I am deeply ashamed & terribly hurt (or visa versa).
Can't be long until somebody tries to make a story out of why he hadn't before Christmas and insert famous person e.g. Boris dad, has had both jabs.
You are skim-reading my comments. I am deeply hurt.
Edit Blimey so you did. That's weird.
I see that no one at Handelsblatt has resigned, or even been chastised, for that grotesque piece of Fake News
Which confirms the opinions of my friends - who work for German TV and papers - that German media is surprisingly crap, lazy, and corrupt
Hopefully, he'll be sent home soon and will spend next few years moaning at me about having ruined his Sunday afternoon. But will take that if it means he's OK.
The best overall result is to put out the fire in this country, stamp it out so it can't restart and be able to put good effort into helping everyone else.
Not do a half-arsed job, stay locked down and flaring back up and not be able to give our best efforts to anyone else.
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1355949935951282180
It's pretty thin gruel, but let's see if it really does give any cover when the bodies pile up.