For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
Yes, it will be just like food rationing cards. A temporary measure for WW2 they said, but here we still are.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
What was being dissed was the idea they could have run full clinical trials so quickly. They clearly didn't, and took a gamble (much more so than did we), which seems to have paid off.
I think quite a few were also saying that Russian science is pretty good, and so it has proved.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
Given the way the Russians have politicised and treated this do we have any independent verifiable data to back up the 92% trial?
I wouldn't trust data coming out of Russia at all, without independent verification.
It was a Dutch group overseeing the trial.
Sounds good. Seems remarkable how many different ones, with different methods, have succeeded.
On WATO the interviewee after the Sputnik chap remarked that it was a bit rich him calling for international collaboration when only a month ago he was suggesting Astra Zeneca would turn you into a chimp....
Very few over 60's in the Sputnik again. The two disallowed deaths in the treatment group raises an eyebrow! I would really want to know how they were removed from the results.
Is there any reason to have any more confidence in this than in Russian antidoping reports giving the green light to all Russian athletes saying they're all clean?
The vaccine may work but without independent verification I wouldn't trust it.
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
Yes, it will be just like food rationing cards. A temporary measure for WW2 they said, but here we still are.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Truly pathetic. My view has zero to do with whether I personally get a jab or not. I haven't as yet and won't for quite a while. And if before then the government announces my wait will be longer because of a priority shift to places where the need is greater, I will be ok with that. That's the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you feel like a mean-spirited, entitled "me first" little shit. Perhaps you are.
In good time we should be generous with out vaccines (especially with Ireland poorer nations) but only when we've vaccinated enough of our own people to significantly drive down the infection rate and ease the pressure on the NHS.
By about May we should be in a position to start sharing our vaccines hopefully.
This is what I'm saying. The alternative vision - no diversion until we have done everyone and have full domestic normality with near zero covid here and our borders closed to the world - does not appeal to me.
Thankfully you are not in charge of vaccine disposition
I'll be writing to my MP though. And possibly to the papers too.
Wonderful - if you can get Labour to adopt your policy, the Tories will win every age group from 18 upwards for the foreseeable future.
Interestingly, Labour are positioning in quite the opposite way. I think they will be arguing AGAINST whatever diversion of supplies the government ends up proposing (if they do).
I expect Orban? and the Serbians? will be happy looking at the Sputnik efficacy this morning. And tbh If I was on the EU's periphery I'd probably take the risks and place an order. The likes of France and Germany won't, too much pride.
Target (UK, all doses, all nations) >>> 15,000,000 Thru >>> 10,140,570 To target >>> 4,859,424 Days to target (14.02.21 2359hrs) 13 Required rate/day 373,801
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
Be prepared to be trampled underfoot by the crowd rushing to make that apology.
I seem to recall @YBarddCwsc saying early on that it would be dumb to dismiss Russian science whatever one thought of the government.
Wasn't the criticism mostly that they started using it (or claimed that they were) before the PIII trial results? So the fear was that it wasn't properly tested, unlike the processes for Pfizer and AZN and so (i) had unproven benefits and (ii) if it was shown to be not very effective or adverse effects emerged that were not apparent in the earlier stage trials then it would undermine acceptance of other, properly tested, Covid vaccines.
The UK and US could have started using Pfizer and AZN at a similar time point and - given what we now know from the trials - that would have not been a bad thing. But we didn't know that at the time and neither did Russia.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
Given the way the Russians have politicised and treated this do we have any independent verifiable data to back up the 92% trial?
I wouldn't trust data coming out of Russia at all, without independent verification.
It was a Dutch group overseeing the trial.
Golly, I would have though relations in general would be pretty frosty between NL and Russia after MH17. Good that some stuff overrides that.
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
Why would anyone want that? It makes no logical sense. Scientists and doctors are people too. They like going to the pub, theatres etc etc. Their families are suffering in this as much as those of everyone else. They want to get out of this as much as everyone else. Websites and other forms of media, on the other hand, love to report shit like this your way because it drives clicks and likes.
The stories about the new variants are being reported by politico, ITV and BBC. Not clickbait sites.
The new variants, according to their narrative, already threaten the protection of the vaccines.
So what's the answer?
It can only be more lockdown. Strip away vaccine protection, as the new variants do (or may do), and that's what we are left with.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
The Sputnik does already use different viral vectors for each dose.
Sputniks potential flaw (and something it shares with AZN) is that vector immunity makes it harder to effectively retool.
Though we're not really sure how much of a problem that is (that it might not be is hinted at by the apparent increased effectiveness of the delayed booster).
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
Yes, it will be just like food rationing cards. A temporary measure for WW2 they said, but here we still are.
Rationing ended rather before my time, if not yours. But IIRC export controls on works of art stem from the same DORA of WW2.
What you should have cited was income tax - a temporary measure for the French Revolutionary Wars ...
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
Utter rot.
So what should we do about the new strains the medics are identifying and highlighting that the vaccine may not protect us against?
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
No. 🤦🏻♂️
The answer is new vaccines that address the new variants, like we get new flu vaccines developed every year.
But currently people have 0% protection against Covid. Even if the vaccine is only 60% protective against the new variants that 60% is absolutely massive and could be enough to keep R in a new outbreak very low all by itself, without a lockdown.
A few months ago people would have taken a 60% effective vaccine as a great result within a year of the outbreak starting.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
G , your appetite for chlorinated chicken and hormone full beef surprises me?
As you are so good at numbers , could you oblige with the death rates and positivity rates for same countries , we can then do a real comparison of who is doing well rather than your Tory cult ideas of success.
Deflect, blame, ignore.
You don't want the Scottish government to improve its rate of vaccination?
I want them to improve of course, but yet again you highlight your bias with your selective numbers. I am happy that Scotland has lower death rate , lower positivity rate and lower vaccination rate. I look at the big picture , you on the other hand ignore the devastating other numbers and focus on the one good part. When we are all vaccinated , Scotland a week or so behind England but England still having 40% higher death rate and probably world champions, will you still be crowing.
Sounds like you are the one crowing about deaths in England. Unless you've got a time machine you can't change the past - all we can change is the present and the future - but you and the SNP seem very defensive over Scotland's slower vaccination rate, now the "care homes first" rationale has run out of road.
Trying to avoid the point yet again. Post the numbers or prove that you are a ne'er do well. I know for a fact you will not post the real data, cowards like you just hide in the shadows and post misinformation. Not very pleasant.
I'm sure you can google like anyone else - I'm not your data service. Yes, the death numbers in England are worse - for many reasons, some of which will be government (in)action, others will not.
The point is "where we are today" and "what we could do better". Which you don't want to engage with. Lets hope the new "super centres" in Aberdeen & Edinburgh pick up the pace, but there's a lot of pace to pick up.
Yes you only want to discuss selected data , we know you of old. I prefer to look at all the data and do not pick the small part that is good for my point. For sure I am certain you will never post anything positive about Scotland. I will continue to view your data in with that in mind, knowing it will at best be partial and slanted.
It's not about you or me - its about how well the SNP government is doing at rolling out vaccines.
Well go then regale us on how well England is doing on deaths then. You only select certain items that are bad for Scotland , you ignore all the good data and do the converse for England. Trying to make out that your odd choice is the only topic to be considered is a pathetic attempt at hiding your hatred for Scotland. I will never see you ever post anything positive about Scotland. It is all about you and your bitter twisted hatred of Scotland, not good for your health all that bile and bitterness.
I'm not the one who rants. When the Scottish Government (not "Scotland") started its "care homes first" strategy I wondered whether that - or the England/Wales/NI approach of "blended 1 & 2" would prove more effective" and it would be interesting to find out.
Sadly the Scottish Government (not "Scotland") appears to have treated it as "either/or" not "and".
Never mind - looks like the British Army will be helping out. I expect you're pleased.
Yet again you just cannot help yourself. keep promoting partial truths and now you try to pretend we don't pay for the Army and that the Army we pay for is doing us a favour and suddenly are British and not Scottish part of the UK funded Army. Give yourself a shake and stop digging or you will be in Australia soon.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Truly pathetic. My view has zero to do with whether I personally get a jab or not. I haven't as yet and won't for quite a while. And if before then the government announces my wait will be longer because of a priority shift to some places where the need is greater, I will be ok with that. That's the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you feel like a mean spirited, entitled "me first" little shit. Perhaps you are.
Glad you said that (the first bit). Cleared up a confusion. April/May for both of us I think. I couldn`t understand why some posters were saying that you had already been vaccinated.
Target (UK, all doses, all nations) >>> 15,000,000 Thru >>> 10,140,570 To target >>> 4,859,424 Days to target (14.02.21 2359hrs) 13 Required rate/day 373,801
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
Why would anyone want that? It makes no logical sense. Scientists and doctors are people too. They like going to the pub, theatres etc etc. Their families are suffering in this as much as those of everyone else. They want to get out of this as much as everyone else. Websites and other forms of media, on the other hand, love to report shit like this your way because it drives clicks and likes.
The stories about the new variants are being reported by politico, ITV and BBC. Not clickbait sites.
The new variants, according to their narrative, already threaten the protection of the vaccines.
So what's the answer?
It can only be more lockdown. Strip away vaccine protection, as the new variants do (or may do), and that's what we are left with.
If you want to campaign for lockdowns you do it.
I'd rather have a vaccine rollout and new vaccines worked on for the future than a lockdown, but if you prefer a lockdown then you do you.
I expect Orban? and the Serbians? will be happy looking at the Sputnik efficacy this morning. And tbh If I was on the EU's periphery I'd probably take the risks and place an order. The likes of France and Germany won't, too much pride.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if that poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
(i) The virus is only under control once its eliminated and all restrictions are lifted, (ii) That's not being said by anyone. The UK has done a lot of thinking about the global effort and funding and developing Covax.
There is no right balance here. The right balance is to eradicate Covid - in the UK obviously is top priority and in the world's best interests too given we are aiding the world, then the world.
To stop vaccinating domestically those who need the vaccine, in order to send a piddly number of vaccines to the rest of the world, would be like saying "we should abolish Universal Credit completely, not replace it with anything, because the rest of the world has worse poverty". Its not poverty or aid, its both, starting at home.
Would you deny a doctor a vaccine to give it to a patient instead? The effort of vaccinating the world is aided by having the UK running at 100%.
I think this argument is pretty redundant. The likelihood of getting the EU, US and us to stretch out all our own vaccination programs in order to divert supplies elsewhere is pretty well nil (and for us to do it alone would have little overall effect).
The real issue is how much more money the wealthy nations should be spending to vaccinate the rest of the world. Given that the return on investment to the wealthy nations from ending the pandemic in poorer countries, just in pure economic terms, is massive, we ought all to be spending significantly more as soon as possible. That it is also the right thing to do anyway, is obvious.
I think the government and Biden's administration have recognised this, hence our huge contributions to COVAX, it's EU nations states that are completely underinvesting in vaccine production both at home with their own programme and overseas through COVAX.
I think I'd be ok with our aid budget being used to make up the difference but ultimately it needs to then support UK industry and interested if we're going above and beyond what we are already doing for international schemes.
Agreed.
But just to put it out there again: https://www.nber.org/papers/w28395#fromrss ...Our estimates suggest that up to 49 percent of the global economic costs of the pandemic in 2021 are borne by the advanced economies even if they achieve universal vaccination in their own countries.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Truly pathetic. My view has zero to do with whether I personally get a jab or not. I haven't as yet and won't for quite a while. And if before then the government announces my wait will be longer because of a priority shift to places where the need is greater, I will be ok with that. That's the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you feel like a mean-spirited, entitled "me first" little shit. Perhaps you are.
You are explicitly endorsing a plan that will mean you are personally protected, while those younger than you can go fuck themselves.
I don't know about you, but that sounds like the position of a selfish little shit to me.
Target (UK, all doses, all nations) >>> 15,000,000 Thru >>> 10,140,570 To target >>> 4,859,424 Days to target (14.02.21 2359hrs) 13 Required rate/day 373,801
If the supplies are there - smashed out the park.
The target is based on invited to be vaccinated. So even if supplies aren`t there ...
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
Yes, it will be just like food rationing cards. A temporary measure for WW2 they said, but here we still are.
Rationing ended rather before my time, if not yours. But IIRC export controls on works of art stem from the same DORA of WW2.
What you should have cited was income tax - a temporary measure for the French Revolutionary Wars ...
Well, no, because income tax turned out to be here to stay, and my point was that lockdowns are not.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
No difference between them, no siree. Care to point me to the CPTPP parliament and commission.
Not to mention their Court (hint they don't have one but set up ad hoc arbitrations as required) or their system of law overriding the law of the membership countries (nope).
Let's put it this way. If the EU was anything like the CPTPP we would still be members.
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
Yes, it will be just like food rationing cards. A temporary measure for WW2 they said, but here we still are.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Truly pathetic. My view has zero to do with whether I personally get a jab or not. I haven't as yet and won't for quite a while. And if before then the government announces my wait will be longer because of a priority shift to places where the need is greater, I will be ok with that. That's the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you feel like a mean-spirited, entitled "me first" little shit. Perhaps you are.
You are explicitly endorsing a plan that will mean you are personally protected, while those younger than you can go fuck themselves.
I don't know about you, but that sounds like the position of a selfish little shit to me.
He's advocating a plan that means fewer vaccines for the young, and fewer vaccines for the rest of the world.
It can only be hate that is driving him because it is illogical.
There will be more vaccines given out to the third world if the UK finishes its vaccine rollout than if we don't. So why would we now finish our own rollout?
For Philip Thompson and all the other vaccine worshipers out there.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
The authoritarian medics are already preparing the post vaccine ground for eternal lockdown. Vaccines, as I commented recently, are little more than tractor stats.
How will Johnson break this to a public that expects to be free soon?
Why would anyone want that? It makes no logical sense. Scientists and doctors are people too. They like going to the pub, theatres etc etc. Their families are suffering in this as much as those of everyone else. They want to get out of this as much as everyone else. Websites and other forms of media, on the other hand, love to report shit like this your way because it drives clicks and likes.
The stories about the new variants are being reported by politico, ITV and BBC. Not clickbait sites.
The new variants, according to their narrative, already threaten the protection of the vaccines.
So what's the answer?
It can only be more lockdown. Strip away vaccine protection, as the new variants do (or may do), and that's what we are left with.
All sites are clickbait sites to a greater or lesser extent. If no one went to the BBC site would the licence fee be allowed to prop it up? Would anyone advertise on the ITV site if no one went to it? As I said, no one, absolutely no one, wants to live like this forever.
Having another fun afternoon writing entry-level job applications. Is there anything more soul destroying?
Reading them
Seriously, the job applications from those who either were going through the motions or are really not qualified are quite depressing (I'm not in the legal profession, but I guess it's similar anywhere). Go for quality over quantity, apply (for now) only to places you'd actually want to work and put your heart and soul into each application. It comes through.
(This does assume that your application gets to the person doing the hiring. If it's algorithmically sorted or farmed out to some flunky then, well... good luck is all I can say).
Thank you. Unfortunately I have a mortgage to pay so don't have this luxury. I will have to just take anything and then progress from there.
What probably happens is everyone gets two doses then those eligible for the flu jab get an annual booster jab. Maybe it can be extended to all adults ? Who knows though.
I expect Orban? and the Serbians? will be happy looking at the Sputnik efficacy this morning. And tbh If I was on the EU's periphery I'd probably take the risks and place an order. The likes of France and Germany won't, too much pride.
Thought Germany was toying with it already?
No need for the France and Netherlands to order any more supplies, they're REALLY pacing themselves.
I am shocked that Comical Ali is shifting his metrics again....he really is the Alister Haimes of vaccinations.
Before he was claiming if you started the window when vaccines approved, UK doing no better... conveniently not worrying about the fact Christmas and New Year in there and no AZN.
Obviously now doesn't work, so now its "fully vaccinated"...problem is in 3 months, UK will be smashing that too.
What's his next metric going to be? Only counting over 80s getting 2 doses of vaccines after Feb...UK again doing shit at that.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Truly pathetic. My view has zero to do with whether I personally get a jab or not. I haven't as yet and won't for quite a while. And if before then the government announces my wait will be longer because of a priority shift to places where the need is greater, I will be ok with that. That's the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you feel like a mean-spirited, entitled "me first" little shit. Perhaps you are.
You are explicitly endorsing a plan that will mean you are personally protected, while those younger than you can go fuck themselves.
I don't know about you, but that sounds like the position of a selfish little shit to me.
I`m not fond on these "selfish" allegations being banded about. (One of the dispiriting aspects of the pandemic in my view).
Take responsibility for your own health and expect others to do the same = selfish Give vaccines to your chosen victim groups abroad and make yourself feel nice and fuzzy inside = selfish
What have they given the world? Apartheid, vuvuzelas, and now this variant.
They need to take a good long hard at themselves.
Biltong on pizza?
I have had a biltong pizza, but slices doesn't work, it needs to be grated.
Lovely country, and lovely peoples who are very welcoming apart from to each other.
I once got stuck in a Transvaal town during a lumberjack festival with nowhere to stay. Some very welcoming neo-nazi Afrikaaners put me up for the night. I had to swap travel stories over a braai with them, in a house decorated with AWB flags etc. Really quite surreal, but I couldn't fault their hospitality.
Better than my Sana'a check in story from last night!
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if that poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
(i) The virus is only under control once its eliminated and all restrictions are lifted, (ii) That's not being said by anyone. The UK has done a lot of thinking about the global effort and funding and developing Covax.
There is no right balance here. The right balance is to eradicate Covid - in the UK obviously is top priority and in the world's best interests too given we are aiding the world, then the world.
Eradication is sadly not a realistic goal. Covid lives now and we - the world - will have to live with it. Hopefully, the impact of vaccines and treatments will within a few years push it into the background to join the flu. That would be a result.
I see that our Dean of Faculty has questioned of wisdom of the SNP replacing a competent, experienced and tenacious QC with someone who has a degree in drama as their spokesperson on Home affairs. He told me that a reply suggests that Cherry's replacement may well be bringing forward their arguments in the form of interpretive dance.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if that poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
(i) The virus is only under control once its eliminated and all restrictions are lifted, (ii) That's not being said by anyone. The UK has done a lot of thinking about the global effort and funding and developing Covax.
There is no right balance here. The right balance is to eradicate Covid - in the UK obviously is top priority and in the world's best interests too given we are aiding the world, then the world.
Eradication is sadly not a realistic goal. Covid lives now and we - the world - will have to live with it. Hopefully, the impact of vaccines and treatments will within a few years push it into the background to join the flu. That would be a result.
Eradication is a very realistic goal.
Vaccinate all adults and the virus will be effectively eradicated. The virus will find far fewer hosts able to spread it and even those hosts who do get it should be protected. Given the vaccine efficacy figures Covid19 should be less of a threat than the flu once everyone is vaccinated.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
Utter rot.
So what should we do about the new strains the medics are identifying and highlighting that the vaccine may not protect us against?
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
No. 🤦🏻♂️
The answer is new vaccines that address the new variants, like we get new flu vaccines developed every year.
But currently people have 0% protection against Covid. Even if the vaccine is only 60% protective against the new variants that 60% is absolutely massive and could be enough to keep R in a new outbreak very low all by itself, without a lockdown.
A few months ago people would have taken a 60% effective vaccine as a great result within a year of the outbreak starting.
I blame Pfizer being first out with 90%. If a 60% one had gone first everyone would be thrilled rather than now nervous when lower ones are announced.
Add to that that some estimate that over 50% of people in Folkestone & Hythe District in Kent have had Covid the herd immunity debate suddenly looks a different. I said earlier that I wondered if the fact that both SA and the UK had variants that ripped through their respective populations resulting in the sort of herd immunity that Sky reported on in SA. It was this piece from the local rag here in Kent that put me on that line of thinking in the UK -
I see that our Dean of Faculty has questioned of wisdom of the SNP replacing a competent, experienced and tenacious QC with someone who has a degree in drama as their spokesperson on Home affairs. He told me that a reply suggests that Cherry's replacement may well be bringing forward their arguments in the form of interpretive dance.
Um. You may be being either too optimistic or too pessimistic.
Caroline Lucas does not present her case in chick-lit written in Elizabethan Prose.
Target (UK, all doses, all nations) >>> 15,000,000 Thru >>> 10,140,570 To target >>> 4,859,424 Days to target (14.02.21 2359hrs) 13 Required rate/day 373,801
If the supplies are there - smashed out the park.
Should be indeed. Looking pretty good, need a strong next few days to be absolutely confident.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
I don't think this is right at all. Sure the elite Brexit supporters want free trade but the Brexit core in the red wall wants protectionism. They want their jobs protected and manufacturing brought back to the UK.
We aren't going to have protectionism.
It's overly simplistic for you and HYUFD to say the red wall wants protectionism or they want a halt to migration.
People want to be listened to, respected and have their lives improve. How that happens isn't as significant as that it does. Most people aren't political extremist obsessives one way or another.
Spot on.
The debate has been wrecked by the myth that there are 17 million extremists in the UK, all voting Brexit. Nearly all Remain and Leave voters are moderates.
Nearly all Leave voters are moderates. Almost a 5th of Leave voters are strong supporters of Donald Trump. Can you square that circle?
My tuppence worth, borders definitely, schools a lot trickier - the Guernsey outbreak has had significant educational transmission, with B117 it may be harder - but a tough call which I don't envy any of them....
Add to that that some estimate that over 50% of people in Folkestone & Hythe District in Kent have had Covid the herd immunity debate suddenly looks a different. I said earlier that I wondered if the fact that both SA and the UK had variants that ripped through their respective populations resulting in the sort of herd immunity that Sky reported on in SA. It was this piece from the local rag here in Kent that put me on that line of thinking in the UK -
I see that our Dean of Faculty has questioned of wisdom of the SNP replacing a competent, experienced and tenacious QC with someone who has a degree in drama as their spokesperson on Home affairs. He told me that a reply suggests that Cherry's replacement may well be bringing forward their arguments in the form of interpretive dance.
The Spectator, Tele and now you coming out in defence of Joanna. What a dream team!
It comes from not having democratic accountability. No one in the commission is going to pay the price for this failure and voters have no mechanism of removing them at their next election. They have to hope the various leaders decide that VdL and the others are actually very useless.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Truly pathetic. My view has zero to do with whether I personally get a jab or not. I haven't as yet and won't for quite a while. And if before then the government announces my wait will be longer because of a priority shift to places where the need is greater, I will be ok with that. That's the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you feel like a mean-spirited, entitled "me first" little shit. Perhaps you are.
You are explicitly endorsing a plan that will mean you are personally protected, while those younger than you can go fuck themselves.
I don't know about you, but that sounds like the position of a selfish little shit to me.
I`m not fond on these "selfish" allegations being banded about. (One of the dispiriting aspects of the pandemic in my view).
Take responsibility for your own health and expect others to do the same = selfish Give vaccines to your chosen victim groups abroad and make yourself feel nice and fuzzy inside = selfish
Can we just lay off with the selfish?
Indeed. See also:
"visited Barbados when it was perfectly legal to do so and when it had a much lower Covid rate = selfish" ...
"took children on holiday to Majorca when the government said it was fine to do so = selfish" ...
"had a couple of mates over for a glass of wine when I was sat at home in my hazmat suit eating gruel = selfish"...
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Truly pathetic. My view has zero to do with whether I personally get a jab or not. I haven't as yet and won't for quite a while. And if before then the government announces my wait will be longer because of a priority shift to places where the need is greater, I will be ok with that. That's the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you feel like a mean-spirited, entitled "me first" little shit. Perhaps you are.
You are explicitly endorsing a plan that will mean you are personally protected, while those younger than you can go fuck themselves.
I don't know about you, but that sounds like the position of a selfish little shit to me.
I`m not fond on these "selfish" allegations being banded about. (One of the dispiriting aspects of the pandemic in my view).
Take responsibility for your own health and expect others to do the same = selfish Give vaccines to your chosen victim groups abroad and make yourself feel nice and fuzzy inside = selfish
Can we just lay off with the selfish?
Useful words tend to get used. I'm amused that that was your main issue with the language of the kinabalu-BB nuclear exchange though
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Truly pathetic. My view has zero to do with whether I personally get a jab or not. I haven't as yet and won't for quite a while. And if before then the government announces my wait will be longer because of a priority shift to some places where the need is greater, I will be ok with that. That's the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you feel like a mean spirited, entitled "me first" little shit. Perhaps you are.
Glad you said that (the first bit). Cleared up a confusion. April/May for both of us I think. I couldn`t understand why some posters were saying that you had already been vaccinated.
People were thinking I was 85. But, yes, I'm more your sort of vintage. Touch nearer to "going over" but ballpark.
Having another fun afternoon writing entry-level job applications. Is there anything more soul destroying?
Reading them
Seriously, the job applications from those who either were going through the motions or are really not qualified are quite depressing (I'm not in the legal profession, but I guess it's similar anywhere). Go for quality over quantity, apply (for now) only to places you'd actually want to work and put your heart and soul into each application. It comes through.
(This does assume that your application gets to the person doing the hiring. If it's algorithmically sorted or farmed out to some flunky then, well... good luck is all I can say).
Thank you. Unfortunately I have a mortgage to pay so don't have this luxury. I will have to just take anything and then progress from there.
Well, there is that. I know the situation. Having said that, taking a job I had little enthusiasm for (only loosely related to my skills/qualifications at the time and with lowish pay) to pay the bills changed my career path completely and for the better.
Also, we do also hire the people who can do the job but clearly aren't that interested in us or what we do, if there are not any better qualified candidates who are.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
Utter rot.
So what should we do about the new strains the medics are identifying and highlighting that the vaccine may not protect us against?
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
No. 🤦🏻♂️
The answer is new vaccines that address the new variants, like we get new flu vaccines developed every year.
But currently people have 0% protection against Covid. Even if the vaccine is only 60% protective against the new variants that 60% is absolutely massive and could be enough to keep R in a new outbreak very low all by itself, without a lockdown.
A few months ago people would have taken a 60% effective vaccine as a great result within a year of the outbreak starting.
I blame Pfizer being first out with 90%. If a 60% one had gone first everyone would be thrilled rather than now nervous when lower ones are announced.
Sorry, but ministers of the crown are stoking the fear. 'Be extremely strict about your lockdown!
and SAGE scientists say 'these super duper vaccine resistant strains may be the tip of the iceberg!
I'm sorry, but these are not the actions of people who want to get out of lockdown. They manifestly are not.
Whenever it looks like we might be approaching some sort of milestone there is another massive dose of fear porn. Not from 'clickbait' news sites but from f8cking government ministers and F8cking SAGE scientists.
They are the actions of people who want to maintain lockdown. They cannot be anything else.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
Utter rot.
So what should we do about the new strains the medics are identifying and highlighting that the vaccine may not protect us against?
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
No. 🤦🏻♂️
The answer is new vaccines that address the new variants, like we get new flu vaccines developed every year.
But currently people have 0% protection against Covid. Even if the vaccine is only 60% protective against the new variants that 60% is absolutely massive and could be enough to keep R in a new outbreak very low all by itself, without a lockdown.
A few months ago people would have taken a 60% effective vaccine as a great result within a year of the outbreak starting.
I blame Pfizer being first out with 90%. If a 60% one had gone first everyone would be thrilled rather than now nervous when lower ones are announced.
I had to explain to my elderly mother that 60-70% is still very good and that the instances of serious illness were basically zero in the AZN trial.
The above from him is a real clanger too - Astrazeneca's specific advice IS for a 12 week gap as best practise.
He is really quite something, and so blatant in intent he must be doing it cynically.
It strikes me that he would have fit in quite nicely in Jonestown. He really is drinking whatever CoolAid the EC gives him, without question or hesitation.
My tuppence worth, borders definitely, schools a lot trickier - the Guernsey outbreak has had significant educational transmission, with B117 it may be harder - but a tough call which I don't envy any of them....
Worth remembering that observed case rates from testing are half of England's levels in Scotland, so roughly speaking the plan sounds like it would reopen schools with the same level of infection in the community as will be the case in England two weeks later.
So if it is a mistake, then it's the same mistake England looks likely to make, unless they have enough time to see a change in Scotland and react accordingly.
It comes from not having democratic accountability. No one in the commission is going to pay the price for this failure and voters have no mechanism of removing them at their next election. They have to hope the various leaders decide that VdL and the others are actually very useless.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if that poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
(i) The virus is only under control once its eliminated and all restrictions are lifted, (ii) That's not being said by anyone. The UK has done a lot of thinking about the global effort and funding and developing Covax.
There is no right balance here. The right balance is to eradicate Covid - in the UK obviously is top priority and in the world's best interests too given we are aiding the world, then the world.
Eradication is sadly not a realistic goal. Covid lives now and we - the world - will have to live with it. Hopefully, the impact of vaccines and treatments will within a few years push it into the background to join the flu. That would be a result.
Eradication is a very realistic goal.
Vaccinate all adults and the virus will be effectively eradicated. The virus will find far fewer hosts able to spread it and even those hosts who do get it should be protected. Given the vaccine efficacy figures Covid19 should be less of a threat than the flu once everyone is vaccinated.
Would be great - but from what I understand from my sources that is optimistic.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
Utter rot.
So what should we do about the new strains the medics are identifying and highlighting that the vaccine may not protect us against?
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
No. 🤦🏻♂️
The answer is new vaccines that address the new variants, like we get new flu vaccines developed every year.
But currently people have 0% protection against Covid. Even if the vaccine is only 60% protective against the new variants that 60% is absolutely massive and could be enough to keep R in a new outbreak very low all by itself, without a lockdown.
A few months ago people would have taken a 60% effective vaccine as a great result within a year of the outbreak starting.
I blame Pfizer being first out with 90%. If a 60% one had gone first everyone would be thrilled rather than now nervous when lower ones are announced.
Sorry, but ministers of the crown are stoking the fear. 'Be extremely strict about your lockdown!
and SAGE scientists say 'these super duper vaccine resistant strains may be the tip of the iceberg!
I'm sorry, but these are not the actions of people who want to get out of lockdown. They manifestly are not.
Whenever it looks like we might be approaching some sort of milestone there is another massive dose of fear porn. Not from 'clickbait' news sites but from f8cking government ministers and F8cking SAGE scientists.
They are the actions of people who want to maintain lockdown. They cannot be anything else.
So you are saying that every single member of SAGE is relishing the prospect of never going out again. That is what they want from life?
On WATO the interviewee after the Sputnik chap remarked that it was a bit rich him calling for international collaboration when only a month ago he was suggesting Astra Zeneca would turn you into a chimp....
Very few over 60's in the Sputnik again. The two disallowed deaths in the treatment group raises an eyebrow! I would really want to know how they were removed from the results.
Developed covid, so taken out and shot - cause of death = shooting.
My tuppence worth, borders definitely, schools a lot trickier - the Guernsey outbreak has had significant educational transmission, with B117 it may be harder - but a tough call which I don't envy any of them....
Scotland's case rate currently is half of England's, so leaving it another couple of weeks to get to a similar level seems entirely reasonable and shouldn't be difficult to explain.
I now fear that the European Union will find itself in the impossible situation of having to prolong some of the existing restrictions beyond the summer, while both Britain and the United States start to normalise. That is the cost of the vaccine delays: a very high cost in lives, prestige and further economic losses. The current crisis has the potential to spiral out of control. The imperative was to reduce the risks of that happening, no matter what the immediate financial cost. But again, to think technologically rather than legally is something that Brussels struggles with. Economies of scale, exponentials, tail risks — all foreign concepts.
At least medieval people who believed in the four humours had the justification of the scientific method not really existing during their lifetime.
What excuse do modern day anti-vaxxers have?
Tuskegee was a thing, the HIV to haemophiliacs scandal was a thing, ADE is a thing. Anti vaxxers fail on a misjudgement of the preponderance of the evidence rather than on defective scientific method i would have thought.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Truly pathetic. My view has zero to do with whether I personally get a jab or not. I haven't as yet and won't for quite a while. And if before then the government announces my wait will be longer because of a priority shift to places where the need is greater, I will be ok with that. That's the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you feel like a mean-spirited, entitled "me first" little shit. Perhaps you are.
You are explicitly endorsing a plan that will mean you are personally protected, while those younger than you can go fuck themselves.
I don't know about you, but that sounds like the position of a selfish little shit to me.
I`m not fond on these "selfish" allegations being banded about. (One of the dispiriting aspects of the pandemic in my view).
Take responsibility for your own health and expect others to do the same = selfish Give vaccines to your chosen victim groups abroad and make yourself feel nice and fuzzy inside = selfish
Can we just lay off with the selfish?
Indeed. See also:
"visited Barbados when it was perfectly legal to do so and when it had a much lower Covid rate = selfish" ...
"took children on holiday to Majorca when the government said it was fine to do so = selfish" ...
"had a couple of mates over for a glass of wine when I was sat at home in my hazmat suit eating gruel = selfish"...
PB at its absolute worst.
I wish I could like that post a dozen times. We are so on the same page.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
Utter rot.
So what should we do about the new strains the medics are identifying and highlighting that the vaccine may not protect us against?
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
No - existing vaccines will work to some extent, and probably prevent severe disease. Vaccines will be tweaked and likely the existing winter flu programme gets added a covid component too, matched to the most prevalent strain. With mRNA, can be done very quickly (4-6 weeks from sequencing was the estimate, not sure about bulk though).
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Congratulations on embracing the idea of collectivist ownership in a domestic context. I'll look for you to apply this in other parts of our national life.
Otherwise, absolute hogwash.
(i) When we have the virus under control, the priority should be switched to the global effort.
(ii) We should not think about the global effort until we have vaccinated every single person in the UK.
Neither of these positions are immoral. Your perspective depends on your answers to various questions. What is the duty of a government? What is the right balance between national and international goals and obligations? For example, is it immoral to spend on foreign aid while we still have poverty here? What if global poverty were contagious and could be spread by human contact? Would that change things? What is meant by enlightened self-interest? Etc etc.
I've ignored the stupid personalizing stuff at the end. Like I said before, it's on the level of "Donate to HMRC then" as a response to somebody arguing for higher taxes. I just have no time for it.
I also look forward to you embracing the principle of 'I'm All Right, Jack' in other areas of national life, which you have so enthusiastically done in this case.
I get it - antinationalism has so distorted your moral sense that the very idea of first helping British people in need (other than yourself, of course) is anathema, and fucking them over for the sake of just about anyone else on the planet is a virtue. Congratulations.
And no wonder you have no time for the 'stupid personalizing stuff', because it exposes your position as the bankrupt hypocrisy it is. At least have the courage of your convictions and insist that you'll refuse the jab until all the people you want to give other people's doses to have had theirs. But you won't - not in a million years.
Truly pathetic. My view has zero to do with whether I personally get a jab or not. I haven't as yet and won't for quite a while. And if before then the government announces my wait will be longer because of a priority shift to some places where the need is greater, I will be ok with that. That's the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you feel like a mean spirited, entitled "me first" little shit. Perhaps you are.
Glad you said that (the first bit). Cleared up a confusion. April/May for both of us I think. I couldn`t understand why some posters were saying that you had already been vaccinated.
People were thinking I was 85. But, yes, I'm more your sort of vintage. Touch nearer to "going over" but ballpark.
Why did posters think you were 85? Were you yanking their chain?
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
Utter rot.
So what should we do about the new strains the medics are identifying and highlighting that the vaccine may not protect us against?
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
No. 🤦🏻♂️
The answer is new vaccines that address the new variants, like we get new flu vaccines developed every year.
But currently people have 0% protection against Covid. Even if the vaccine is only 60% protective against the new variants that 60% is absolutely massive and could be enough to keep R in a new outbreak very low all by itself, without a lockdown.
A few months ago people would have taken a 60% effective vaccine as a great result within a year of the outbreak starting.
I blame Pfizer being first out with 90%. If a 60% one had gone first everyone would be thrilled rather than now nervous when lower ones are announced.
Sorry, but ministers of the crown are stoking the fear. 'Be extremely strict about your lockdown!
and SAGE scientists say 'these super duper vaccine resistant strains may be the tip of the iceberg!
I'm sorry, but these are not the actions of people who want to get out of lockdown. They manifestly are not.
Whenever it looks like we might be approaching some sort of milestone there is another massive dose of fear porn. Not from 'clickbait' news sites but from f8cking government ministers and F8cking SAGE scientists.
They are the actions of people who want to maintain lockdown. They cannot be anything else.
So you are saying that every single member of SAGE is relishing the prospect of never going out again. That is what they want from life?
No I am saying that many members of SAGE are relishing the massive, unaccountable power that the British government has given them without any mandate whatsoever , and like every other 'human being' (as you put it) they have grown accustomed to it, like it, and do not want to let it go.
That's what I am saying. And as you claimed, scientists are human beings. Human beings love telling other human beings what to do.
After the Biden conversation photo I thought the flag war was dying down, but now I see we are moving into prop comedy. I can't wait to see what Keir has in store next time.
The Senate already thinks it's wrong to convict a guilty man out of office though. So future presidents should save crimes for their last month and in DC exclusively.
NI hasn't been solely the UK since 1997. Quite frankly so long as they find a solution that works, I don't give a damn and don't see why anyone else should either.
Yes, yet another vaccine with good scores. It does sound like an easily targeted virus.
The takeaway from R4 this lunchtime is that a shot of the AZN followed by a shot of the Sputnik (or vice versa) may be the best strategem.
I hate to say it but it looks like a lot of people might owe the old Ruskies an apology. There were a lot of people who were dissing the idea that the Russians could have developed a viable vaccine so quickly. Very glad, from a humanitarian point of view that it looks like they were wrong.
I'm not sure anyone was dissing their ability to produce a good vaccine - they have well-established expertise in this field. The question was about them rushing to deploy it before they had done proper Phase III trials.
I'd still like to see some independent trials conducted outside Russia. Also there is the issue of quality control when producing millions of doses.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
Utter rot.
So what should we do about the new strains the medics are identifying and highlighting that the vaccine may not protect us against?
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
No. 🤦🏻♂️
The answer is new vaccines that address the new variants, like we get new flu vaccines developed every year.
But currently people have 0% protection against Covid. Even if the vaccine is only 60% protective against the new variants that 60% is absolutely massive and could be enough to keep R in a new outbreak very low all by itself, without a lockdown.
A few months ago people would have taken a 60% effective vaccine as a great result within a year of the outbreak starting.
I blame Pfizer being first out with 90%. If a 60% one had gone first everyone would be thrilled rather than now nervous when lower ones are announced.
Sorry, but ministers of the crown are stoking the fear. 'Be extremely strict about your lockdown!
and SAGE scientists say 'these super duper vaccine resistant strains may be the tip of the iceberg!
I'm sorry, but these are not the actions of people who want to get out of lockdown. They manifestly are not.
Whenever it looks like we might be approaching some sort of milestone there is another massive dose of fear porn. Not from 'clickbait' news sites but from f8cking government ministers and F8cking SAGE scientists.
They are the actions of people who want to maintain lockdown. They cannot be anything else.
So you are saying that every single member of SAGE is relishing the prospect of never going out again. That is what they want from life?
No I am saying that many members of SAGE are relishing the massive, unaccountable power that the British government has given them without any mandate whatsoever , and like every other 'human being' (as you put it) they have grown accustomed to it, like it, and do not want to let it go.
That's what I am saying. And as you claimed, scientists are human beings. Human beings love telling other human beings what to do.
Only if they are not liberals.
I think you are being too harsh on the Sageies. I doubt that they are the power-hungry type.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
Utter rot.
So what should we do about the new strains the medics are identifying and highlighting that the vaccine may not protect us against?
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
No - existing vaccines will work to some extent, and probably prevent severe disease. Vaccines will be tweaked and likely the existing winter flu programme gets added a covid component too, matched to the most prevalent strain. With mRNA, can be done very quickly (4-6 weeks from sequencing was the estimate, not sure about bulk though).
OK if the authorities think vaccines are the answer, then why the massive dose of fear porn we are getting from Hancock and SAGE today? why the 'testing surge'. Why the doomsday warnings about staying home and strict observance? why the tip of the iceberg! stuff from SAGE.
These are not the actions of people who believe vaccines are the answer. They simply are not. They cannot be. Their responses would be far, far more sanguine.
Plenty of people are determined that we never, ever, get out of this.
Utter rot.
So what should we do about the new strains the medics are identifying and highlighting that the vaccine may not protect us against?
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
No. 🤦🏻♂️
The answer is new vaccines that address the new variants, like we get new flu vaccines developed every year.
But currently people have 0% protection against Covid. Even if the vaccine is only 60% protective against the new variants that 60% is absolutely massive and could be enough to keep R in a new outbreak very low all by itself, without a lockdown.
A few months ago people would have taken a 60% effective vaccine as a great result within a year of the outbreak starting.
I blame Pfizer being first out with 90%. If a 60% one had gone first everyone would be thrilled rather than now nervous when lower ones are announced.
Sorry, but ministers of the crown are stoking the fear. 'Be extremely strict about your lockdown!
and SAGE scientists say 'these super duper vaccine resistant strains may be the tip of the iceberg!
I'm sorry, but these are not the actions of people who want to get out of lockdown. They manifestly are not.
Whenever it looks like we might be approaching some sort of milestone there is another massive dose of fear porn. Not from 'clickbait' news sites but from f8cking government ministers and F8cking SAGE scientists.
They are the actions of people who want to maintain lockdown. They cannot be anything else.
So you are saying that every single member of SAGE is relishing the prospect of never going out again. That is what they want from life?
No I am saying that many members of SAGE are relishing the massive, unaccountable power that the British government has given them without any mandate whatsoever , and like every other 'human being' (as you put it) they have grown accustomed to it, like it, and do not want to let it go.
That's what I am saying. And as you claimed, scientists are human beings. Human beings love telling other human beings what to do.
I'd be more inclined to consider it if you used the word accountable correctly. Just today today there was talk of them being ignored by No 10 so not even all powerful.
Comments
Don;t tell me, let me guess.
The answer is more lockdown, right? has to be?
They clearly didn't, and took a gamble (much more so than did we), which seems to have paid off.
I think quite a few were also saying that Russian science is pretty good, and so it has proved.
It's stupefyin'
https://twitter.com/hildabast/status/1356585269877563392
A few other red flags in that thread.
Is there any reason to have any more confidence in this than in Russian antidoping reports giving the green light to all Russian athletes saying they're all clean?
The vaccine may work but without independent verification I wouldn't trust it.
The likes of France and Germany won't, too much pride.
Target (UK, all doses, all nations) >>> 15,000,000
Thru >>> 10,140,570
To target >>> 4,859,424
Days to target (14.02.21 2359hrs) 13
Required rate/day 373,801
The UK and US could have started using Pfizer and AZN at a similar time point and - given what we now know from the trials - that would have not been a bad thing. But we didn't know that at the time and neither did Russia.
The new variants, according to their narrative, already threaten the protection of the vaccines.
So what's the answer?
It can only be more lockdown. Strip away vaccine protection, as the new variants do (or may do), and that's what we are left with.
What you should have cited was income tax - a temporary measure for the French Revolutionary Wars ...
The answer is new vaccines that address the new variants, like we get new flu vaccines developed every year.
But currently people have 0% protection against Covid. Even if the vaccine is only 60% protective against the new variants that 60% is absolutely massive and could be enough to keep R in a new outbreak very low all by itself, without a lockdown.
A few months ago people would have taken a 60% effective vaccine as a great result within a year of the outbreak starting.
The above from him is a real clanger too - Astrazeneca's specific advice IS for a 12 week gap as best practise.
I'd rather have a vaccine rollout and new vaccines worked on for the future than a lockdown, but if you prefer a lockdown then you do you.
But just to put it out there again:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w28395#fromrss
...Our estimates suggest that up to 49 percent of the global economic costs of the pandemic in 2021 are borne by the advanced economies even if they achieve universal vaccination in their own countries.
I don't know about you, but that sounds like the position of a selfish little shit to me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55904466
Let's put it this way. If the EU was anything like the CPTPP we would still be members.
It can only be hate that is driving him because it is illogical.
There will be more vaccines given out to the third world if the UK finishes its vaccine rollout than if we don't. So why would we now finish our own rollout?
😂
Maybe it can be extended to all adults ? Who knows though. No need for the France and Netherlands to order any more supplies, they're REALLY pacing themselves.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1356595398266277901?s=20
Before he was claiming if you started the window when vaccines approved, UK doing no better... conveniently not worrying about the fact Christmas and New Year in there and no AZN.
Obviously now doesn't work, so now its "fully vaccinated"...problem is in 3 months, UK will be smashing that too.
What's his next metric going to be? Only counting over 80s getting 2 doses of vaccines after Feb...UK again doing shit at that.
Take responsibility for your own health and expect others to do the same = selfish
Give vaccines to your chosen victim groups abroad and make yourself feel nice and fuzzy inside = selfish
Can we just lay off with the selfish?
Have we got the breakdown of English/Welsh/NI and Scottish for today?
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1356614660842217474?s=20
Vaccinate all adults and the virus will be effectively eradicated. The virus will find far fewer hosts able to spread it and even those hosts who do get it should be protected. Given the vaccine efficacy figures Covid19 should be less of a threat than the flu once everyone is vaccinated.
19%-56% may have had it - doesn't really prompt one to assume it HAS to be at the top end, though.
What excuse do modern day anti-vaxxers have?
I'm sure a Nat will be along shortly to point out Scotland's performance....
Caroline Lucas does not present her case in chick-lit written in Elizabethan Prose.
Deal with it
Though ... to be fair:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3Q9AFt704
"Guys, stop getting excited by the fire"
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1356615043417333760?s=20
My tuppence worth, borders definitely, schools a lot trickier - the Guernsey outbreak has had significant educational transmission, with B117 it may be harder - but a tough call which I don't envy any of them....
Anti-vaxx has.... Wakefield.
"visited Barbados when it was perfectly legal to do so and when it had a much lower Covid rate = selfish" ...
"took children on holiday to Majorca when the government said it was fine to do so = selfish" ...
"had a couple of mates over for a glass of wine when I was sat at home in my hazmat suit eating gruel = selfish"...
PB at its absolute worst.
Also, we do also hire the people who can do the job but clearly aren't that interested in us or what we do, if there are not any better qualified candidates who are.
Good luck!
and SAGE scientists say 'these super duper vaccine resistant strains may be the tip of the iceberg!
I'm sorry, but these are not the actions of people who want to get out of lockdown. They manifestly are not.
Whenever it looks like we might be approaching some sort of milestone there is another massive dose of fear porn. Not from 'clickbait' news sites but from f8cking government ministers and F8cking SAGE scientists.
They are the actions of people who want to maintain lockdown. They cannot be anything else.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1356616750561972227?s=20
So if it is a mistake, then it's the same mistake England looks likely to make, unless they have enough time to see a change in Scotland and react accordingly.
(Lights blue touch paper and walks away...)
(Joke, before anyone gets riled...)
https://unherd.com/2021/02/why-the-eu-lost-the-vaccine-war/?=frlh
That's what I am saying. And as you claimed, scientists are human beings. Human beings love telling other human beings what to do.
The Senate already thinks it's wrong to convict a guilty man out of office though. So future presidents should save crimes for their last month and in DC exclusively.
NI hasn't been solely the UK since 1997. Quite frankly so long as they find a solution that works, I don't give a damn and don't see why anyone else should either.
I'd still like to see some independent trials conducted outside Russia. Also there is the issue of quality control when producing millions of doses.
I think you are being too harsh on the Sageies. I doubt that they are the power-hungry type.
These are not the actions of people who believe vaccines are the answer. They simply are not. They cannot be. Their responses would be far, far more sanguine.