Have I got this right? You were sending your daughter to the £32k a year (Jeeeesus...) American School London and pulled her out because they were teaching students about white privilege?
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of white privilege to many. Even to those of us who are white who don't have a spare £32k a year for school fees.
Quite the opposite to me Rochdale!
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of money privilege to many. It has nothing to do with skin colour.
I would not be remotely surprised that many of those able to afford to send their kids to the school would be non-white and the notion that a white kid from Rochdale, or Birkenhead, or Hartlepool etc is "privileged" while a kid going to the ASL school because their parents can afford to pay £32k per year isn't due to their skin colour rather shows what is wrong with this ridiculous idea.
I'm not intending to disappear down this particular cul-de-sac and have already posted that class has as much to do with it as race. Its just that most of the people who manage to get into the stratified upper atmosphere of A+++ are white.
The real outrage about "white privilege" shouldn't be that it self-evidently is there for a tiny minority, it should be that those people then work very hard to keep the WWC in the gutter.
We saw the ludicrous situation last week of "concerned" Tories unhappy that poor white kids do so badly in school. The same Tories consistently vote to cut schools budgets, cut council services budgets and even not to feed them in the holidays and then wonder why their kids do so badly in school...
Why do you think the taxpayer should feed children instead of their parents?
Says the chap who can afford £32k pa per child for school fees. Are you against Free School Meals for poor families, Charles? Presumably you are, as that is the taxpayer feeding children instead of their parents.
I’m actually a huge fan of breakfast clubs in particular. Good nutrition is a key part of education. Free school meals are a bit of a blunt instrument but they serve a role.
However:
- feeding kids during holidays as well represents a massive erosion of the concept of parental responsibility. If you think benefits are not enough then stand up and argue for an increase in benefits - I really dislike the “why do you want kids to go hungry” line of argument if you oppose extension. It’s manipulative bullshit.
If the parents had the money they would feed their kids. They don't. And thats not because they are are crackheads as that Tory MP suggested. So the choice is either direct application of service provision or they go hungry.
Either way they are going to do shit at school because you don't want to pay. Hence the need to spin it as anything other than what it is.
The current approach does have a big problem - which is that if you have a tight budget or cannot budget at all the sudden (and yes I know School holidays are scheduled but remember the issue here is potentially dysfunctional parents) need to find £10-20 to pay for breakfast / lunch is something a fair number of people cannot cope with.
Now I haven't a clue what the fix is but there is an issue there regardless of Charle's viewpoint that the parents should be able to manage. The simple fact is that a lot of parents simply can't.
And I've seen degree educated parents (who have then drawn very dire and unlucky hands) who have got themselves into this situation.
My view wasn’t “the parents should be able to manage”
It is: if the welfare system isn’t giving them enough money to feed their kids it needs to be increased. Imposition of free school meals demeans parents and undermines the concept of responsibility and the family unit.
Free School meals exist because it's easier than the other options (believe me as a school Governor for 8 years in an area with 30% getting free school meals) you see every level of disfunction going. And I had it easy - Mrs Eek working in a different school across town in a way more deprived area had stories that shocked social workers.
The only other fix would be a lot more work for social services - free school meals allow big problems to be hidden.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
IIRC the conversation was in the context of "why vaccinate children?"
Well, the side effects of the vaccine in question (Pfizer) are orders of magnitude less than the probability of ending up in hospital (for children), if Delta spreads through the population.
0.045% chance of someone 0-17 ending up in hospital with Covid.
Yes, and the side effects are extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that at a not very high level of COVID in the community, the risk from the vaccines would be orders of magnitude less than the risk from COVID.
We are agreeing.
We only got into this when I queried why children might be kept from school beyond "Freedom Day" and @Andy_Cooke came over all halo polishing but he agrees also.
Of course we should intervene where appropriate. But that’s not extending free school meals to be a year round service.
What sort of intervention are you keen on?
Extending free school meals during holidays to those most in need might be the cheapest and easiest way of intervening meaningfully. I don't like it; I don't like the fact it's necessary. But in my relatively well-off, middle-class area, I know of people who are really struggling. I don't see why their kids should suffer.
(I quite liked the controversial Troubled Families Scheme, which appears to have died a death.)
Have I got this right? You were sending your daughter to the £32k a year (Jeeeesus...) American School London and pulled her out because they were teaching students about white privilege?
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of white privilege to many. Even to those of us who are white who don't have a spare £32k a year for school fees.
Quite the opposite to me Rochdale!
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of money privilege to many. It has nothing to do with skin colour.
I would not be remotely surprised that many of those able to afford to send their kids to the school would be non-white and the notion that a white kid from Rochdale, or Birkenhead, or Hartlepool etc is "privileged" while a kid going to the ASL school because their parents can afford to pay £32k per year isn't due to their skin colour rather shows what is wrong with this ridiculous idea.
I'm not intending to disappear down this particular cul-de-sac and have already posted that class has as much to do with it as race. Its just that most of the people who manage to get into the stratified upper atmosphere of A+++ are white.
The real outrage about "white privilege" shouldn't be that it self-evidently is there for a tiny minority, it should be that those people then work very hard to keep the WWC in the gutter.
We saw the ludicrous situation last week of "concerned" Tories unhappy that poor white kids do so badly in school. The same Tories consistently vote to cut schools budgets, cut council services budgets and even not to feed them in the holidays and then wonder why their kids do so badly in school...
Why do you think the taxpayer should feed children instead of their parents?
Says the chap who can afford £32k pa per child for school fees. Are you against Free School Meals for poor families, Charles? Presumably you are, as that is the taxpayer feeding children instead of their parents.
I’m actually a huge fan of breakfast clubs in particular. Good nutrition is a key part of education. Free school meals are a bit of a blunt instrument but they serve a role.
However:
- feeding kids during holidays as well represents a massive erosion of the concept of parental responsibility. If you think benefits are not enough then stand up and argue for an increase in benefits - I really dislike the “why do you want kids to go hungry” line of argument if you oppose extension. It’s manipulative bullshit.
If the parents had the money they would feed their kids. They don't. And thats not because they are are crackheads as that Tory MP suggested. So the choice is either direct application of service provision or they go hungry.
Either way they are going to do shit at school because you don't want to pay. Hence the need to spin it as anything other than what it is.
The current approach does have a big problem - which is that if you have a tight budget or cannot budget at all the sudden (and yes I know School holidays are scheduled but remember the issue here is potentially dysfunctional parents) need to find £10-20 to pay for breakfast / lunch is something a fair number of people cannot cope with.
Now I haven't a clue what the fix is but there is an issue there regardless of Charle's viewpoint that the parents should be able to manage. The simple fact is that a lot of parents simply can't.
And I've seen degree educated parents (who have then drawn very dire and unlucky hands) who have got themselves into this situation.
My view wasn’t “the parents should be able to manage”
It is: if the welfare system isn’t giving them enough money to feed their kids it needs to be increased. Imposition of free school meals demeans parents and undermines the concept of responsibility and the family unit.
Free School meals exist because it's easier than the other options (believe me as a school Governor for 8 years in an area with 30% getting free school meals) you see every level of disfunction going.
The only other fix would be a lot more work for social services - free school meals allow big problems to be hidden.
I sometime wonder what would happen if we expanded the tiny number of state boarding schools, with the actual boarding as free.....
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Right. So a 0.045% risk of a child 0-17 being hospitalised with Covid.
What about the "well over a hundred thousand children with chronic illness"?
Using the lower confidence limit, the ONS estimate of people by age, and an approximate 30% of children infected so far, you'd get 382,000.
Even if you halved the lower confidence limit and assumed a mere 20% of children had had it, you'd still have well over a hundred thousand children with long-lasting symptoms.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
IIRC the conversation was in the context of "why vaccinate children?"
Well, the side effects of the vaccine in question (Pfizer) are orders of magnitude less than the probability of ending up in hospital (for children), if Delta spreads through the population.
0.045% chance of someone 0-17 ending up in hospital with Covid.
One obvious solution is only to vaccinate children with underlying health conditions. I suspect that the vast majority of the 6,000 cited above will have such health issues.
The chances of healthy children becoming sick from Covid are absolutely tiny.
Have I got this right? You were sending your daughter to the £32k a year (Jeeeesus...) American School London and pulled her out because they were teaching students about white privilege?
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of white privilege to many. Even to those of us who are white who don't have a spare £32k a year for school fees.
Quite the opposite to me Rochdale!
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of money privilege to many. It has nothing to do with skin colour.
I would not be remotely surprised that many of those able to afford to send their kids to the school would be non-white and the notion that a white kid from Rochdale, or Birkenhead, or Hartlepool etc is "privileged" while a kid going to the ASL school because their parents can afford to pay £32k per year isn't due to their skin colour rather shows what is wrong with this ridiculous idea.
I'm not intending to disappear down this particular cul-de-sac and have already posted that class has as much to do with it as race. Its just that most of the people who manage to get into the stratified upper atmosphere of A+++ are white.
The real outrage about "white privilege" shouldn't be that it self-evidently is there for a tiny minority, it should be that those people then work very hard to keep the WWC in the gutter.
We saw the ludicrous situation last week of "concerned" Tories unhappy that poor white kids do so badly in school. The same Tories consistently vote to cut schools budgets, cut council services budgets and even not to feed them in the holidays and then wonder why their kids do so badly in school...
Why do you think the taxpayer should feed children instead of their parents?
Says the chap who can afford £32k pa per child for school fees. Are you against Free School Meals for poor families, Charles? Presumably you are, as that is the taxpayer feeding children instead of their parents.
I’m actually a huge fan of breakfast clubs in particular. Good nutrition is a key part of education. Free school meals are a bit of a blunt instrument but they serve a role.
However:
- feeding kids during holidays as well represents a massive erosion of the concept of parental responsibility. If you think benefits are not enough then stand up and argue for an increase in benefits - I really dislike the “why do you want kids to go hungry” line of argument if you oppose extension. It’s manipulative bullshit.
If the parents had the money they would feed their kids. They don't. And thats not because they are are crackheads as that Tory MP suggested. So the choice is either direct application of service provision or they go hungry.
Either way they are going to do shit at school because you don't want to pay. Hence the need to spin it as anything other than what it is.
The current approach does have a big problem - which is that if you have a tight budget or cannot budget at all the sudden (and yes I know School holidays are scheduled but remember the issue here is potentially dysfunctional parents) need to find £10-20 to pay for breakfast / lunch is something a fair number of people cannot cope with.
Now I haven't a clue what the fix is but there is an issue there regardless of Charle's viewpoint that the parents should be able to manage. The simple fact is that a lot of parents simply can't.
And I've seen degree educated parents (who have then drawn very dire and unlucky hands) who have got themselves into this situation.
My view wasn’t “the parents should be able to manage”
It is: if the welfare system isn’t giving them enough money to feed their kids it needs to be increased. Imposition of free school meals demeans parents and undermines the concept of responsibility and the family unit.
Free School meals exist because it's easier than the other options (believe me as a school Governor for 8 years in an area with 30% getting free school meals) you see every level of disfunction going.
The only other fix would be a lot more work for social services - free school meals allow big problems to be hidden.
I sometime wonder what would happen if we expanded the tiny number of state boarding schools, with the actual boarding as free.....
I suspect a lot of children would jump at the chance.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Of course we should intervene where appropriate. But that’s not extending free school meals to be a year round service.
What sort of intervention are you keen on?
Extending free school meals during holidays to those most in need might be the cheapest and easiest way of intervening meaningfully. I don't like it; I don't like the fact it's necessary. But in my relatively well-off, middle-class area, I know of people who are really struggling. I don't see why their kids should suffer.
(I quite liked the controversial Troubled Families Scheme, which appears to have died a death.)
It's died because it cost serious money and the outcomes weren't great given the limited time the scheme ran (and never were going to be given that the time scale allowed for the scheme wasn't enough).
NEW: Of 1,991 #coronavirus cases registered by Public Health Scotland (PHS) recently, TWO THIRDS said they had travelled to London to watch England v Scotland on 18 June
One thing that the likes of Dr John Campbell (and others) has been hypothesising is that original alpha variant nearly impossible to catch outside, he has been saying it may well be that the Indian variant, albeit still much harder, it is now possible to do so...infected exhaust more virus and you need to inhale less virus to get infected (as much better binding).
Supporting Scotland is bad for your health.
On the question of whether Covid is transmissable outside at Wembley stadium, presumably these fans would have travelled together by coach or train, taking far longer than they'd have been at Wembley.
I would assume that this is people travelling down in groups from what is already a Covid hotspot, with ~1 individual in the group infected and passing it to the rest, and then the entirely uninfected groups cross-infecting in e.g. the pub.
And this is the issue with the whole "tested negative within 48 hours of the game" line. I guess it's unusual to have match going supporters travelling a long distance surrounded by non-ticket holders, but it is a risk that people will get infected on the trains/tubes.
Another implication is that they don't normally have that many people travelling between England and Scotland, or at least that the ones who do are less likely to have the pox anyway (or are better behaved so don't catch it). Were thje trains rammed? I believe seat reservations are obligatory.
I think most had assumed the rise was down to chaps meeting in pubs or at home to watch the fitba.
I also wonder about the Rangers match a few days before as a seeder event. Maybe the Euros amplified it.
Rangers fans = Unionists = good guys = pox-free
Scotland fans = Separatists = bad guys = pox-ridden
Have I got this right? You were sending your daughter to the £32k a year (Jeeeesus...) American School London and pulled her out because they were teaching students about white privilege?
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of white privilege to many. Even to those of us who are white who don't have a spare £32k a year for school fees.
Quite the opposite to me Rochdale!
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of money privilege to many. It has nothing to do with skin colour.
I would not be remotely surprised that many of those able to afford to send their kids to the school would be non-white and the notion that a white kid from Rochdale, or Birkenhead, or Hartlepool etc is "privileged" while a kid going to the ASL school because their parents can afford to pay £32k per year isn't due to their skin colour rather shows what is wrong with this ridiculous idea.
I'm not intending to disappear down this particular cul-de-sac and have already posted that class has as much to do with it as race. Its just that most of the people who manage to get into the stratified upper atmosphere of A+++ are white.
The real outrage about "white privilege" shouldn't be that it self-evidently is there for a tiny minority, it should be that those people then work very hard to keep the WWC in the gutter.
We saw the ludicrous situation last week of "concerned" Tories unhappy that poor white kids do so badly in school. The same Tories consistently vote to cut schools budgets, cut council services budgets and even not to feed them in the holidays and then wonder why their kids do so badly in school...
Why do you think the taxpayer should feed children instead of their parents?
Says the chap who can afford £32k pa per child for school fees. Are you against Free School Meals for poor families, Charles? Presumably you are, as that is the taxpayer feeding children instead of their parents.
I’m actually a huge fan of breakfast clubs in particular. Good nutrition is a key part of education. Free school meals are a bit of a blunt instrument but they serve a role.
However:
- feeding kids during holidays as well represents a massive erosion of the concept of parental responsibility. If you think benefits are not enough then stand up and argue for an increase in benefits - I really dislike the “why do you want kids to go hungry” line of argument if you oppose extension. It’s manipulative bullshit.
If the parents had the money they would feed their kids. They don't. And thats not because they are are crackheads as that Tory MP suggested. So the choice is either direct application of service provision or they go hungry.
Either way they are going to do shit at school because you don't want to pay. Hence the need to spin it as anything other than what it is.
The current approach does have a big problem - which is that if you have a tight budget or cannot budget at all the sudden (and yes I know School holidays are scheduled but remember the issue here is potentially dysfunctional parents) need to find £10-20 to pay for breakfast / lunch is something a fair number of people cannot cope with.
Now I haven't a clue what the fix is but there is an issue there regardless of Charle's viewpoint that the parents should be able to manage. The simple fact is that a lot of parents simply can't.
And I've seen degree educated parents (who have then drawn very dire and unlucky hands) who have got themselves into this situation.
My view wasn’t “the parents should be able to manage”
It is: if the welfare system isn’t giving them enough money to feed their kids it needs to be increased. Imposition of free school meals demeans parents and undermines the concept of responsibility and the family unit.
Charles, without wanting to come across like a massive tosser, you and voters like you are the reason why the welfare system isn't giving them enough. Your party and your government aren't creating a hungry underclass of children and their desperate parents because its massively against public opinion.
They think like this it because the newspapers you read owned by other posh rich white people endlessly drill home the message to their readers how feckless and workshy they are. How the teachers in these schools aren't any better and aren't exams getting easier. How marvellously well off everyone is because so many opportunities so if they're dirt poor its their fault.
Thats what people then vote for. This is grinding poverty by government policy on behalf of people like you. If you wanted to change it then do so! Tell the party it is the wrong approach and a return to a big Thatcher-style 80s safety net is the way forward. You're happy to act pull your child out of a school who outrageously points out that £32k a year in fees is a privileged position, so why not act and lobby your mates up there to not treat people like scum?
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
It might be EU English, which is its own distinct dialect:
comitology - EU committee process European solidarity - we want your money universal solution - more powers for the EU subsidiarity - pardon?
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Right. So a 0.045% risk of a child 0-17 being hospitalised with Covid.
What about the "well over a hundred thousand children with chronic illness"?
Using the lower confidence limit, the ONS estimate of people by age, and an approximate 30% of children infected so far, you'd get 382,000.
Even if you halved the lower confidence limit and assumed a mere 20% of children had had it, you'd still have well over a hundred thousand children with long-lasting symptoms.
I've got a few fag packets also. If children are relatively unaffected by Covid what on earth makes you think that they will be as susceptible to "Long Covid" as adults?
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
The top language in the EU ...
If it winds up Brexiteers and/or Unionists, fine by me! I’ll encourage this usage.
Anyway, the English language derives from what is now northwest Germany/southern Denmark, so it is thoroughly mainlandish.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
Robert Dingwall of the JCVI in a series of tweets today systematically demolishes your argument that 'the risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it'
As well as the same argument of all the other posters who think vaccinating children is suddenly a priority.
Is Dingwall an antivaxxer I wonder?
The screech every lockdown lunatic uses when they have lost an argument
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
Anyway, I've been adding to that visualisation I've been using. (@Topping - look away now; this won't fit with your worldview of me).
I think throughout this pandemic you have been a leading light on PB in trying to get to the figures and make assessments and draw some conclusions and of course I think you have done this out of a genuine concern for peoples' well-being.
The point we are discussing now is the reasons for vaccinating children which, for the risks they face in getting Covid and also once they have the disease, is in my opinion not a slam dunk.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
It's a good job Casino is away being Grant Shapps' plus one at the Goodwood Revival. He would have done his fucking nut over that.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
The top language in the EU ...
If it winds up Brexiteers and/or Unionists, fine by me! I’ll encourage this usage.
Anyway, the English language derives from what is now northwest Germany/southern Denmark, so it is thoroughly mainlandish.
No problem winding them up, as long as the French are on the list.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Right. So a 0.045% risk of a child 0-17 being hospitalised with Covid.
What about the "well over a hundred thousand children with chronic illness"?
Using the lower confidence limit, the ONS estimate of people by age, and an approximate 30% of children infected so far, you'd get 382,000.
Even if you halved the lower confidence limit and assumed a mere 20% of children had had it, you'd still have well over a hundred thousand children with long-lasting symptoms.
I've got a few fag packets also. If children are relatively unaffected by Covid what on earth makes you think that they will be as susceptible to "Long Covid" as adults?
5-20% seems massively high. I don't know anyone who reckons they have or had long covid. Or else the definition of long covid includes anyone still not feeling 100% right six weeks later (I know a few who fall into that category). And of the children I know who've had it, I only know one for whom it was anything more than a day or so of feeling a bit grotty. Anecdata/small subsample caveat, and all the children I know are aged 11 and below - may be different for teenagers.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Right. So a 0.045% risk of a child 0-17 being hospitalised with Covid.
What about the "well over a hundred thousand children with chronic illness"?
Using the lower confidence limit, the ONS estimate of people by age, and an approximate 30% of children infected so far, you'd get 382,000.
Even if you halved the lower confidence limit and assumed a mere 20% of children had had it, you'd still have well over a hundred thousand children with long-lasting symptoms.
I've got a few fag packets also. If children are relatively unaffected by Covid what on earth makes you think that they will be as susceptible to "Long Covid" as adults?
Um - their prevalence of long covid (and why the scare quotes? Are you trying to imply it's all made up?) is specifically broken down by age.
Have I got this right? You were sending your daughter to the £32k a year (Jeeeesus...) American School London and pulled her out because they were teaching students about white privilege?
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of white privilege to many. Even to those of us who are white who don't have a spare £32k a year for school fees.
Quite the opposite to me Rochdale!
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of money privilege to many. It has nothing to do with skin colour.
I would not be remotely surprised that many of those able to afford to send their kids to the school would be non-white and the notion that a white kid from Rochdale, or Birkenhead, or Hartlepool etc is "privileged" while a kid going to the ASL school because their parents can afford to pay £32k per year isn't due to their skin colour rather shows what is wrong with this ridiculous idea.
I'm not intending to disappear down this particular cul-de-sac and have already posted that class has as much to do with it as race. Its just that most of the people who manage to get into the stratified upper atmosphere of A+++ are white.
The real outrage about "white privilege" shouldn't be that it self-evidently is there for a tiny minority, it should be that those people then work very hard to keep the WWC in the gutter.
We saw the ludicrous situation last week of "concerned" Tories unhappy that poor white kids do so badly in school. The same Tories consistently vote to cut schools budgets, cut council services budgets and even not to feed them in the holidays and then wonder why their kids do so badly in school...
Why do you think the taxpayer should feed children instead of their parents?
Says the chap who can afford £32k pa per child for school fees. Are you against Free School Meals for poor families, Charles? Presumably you are, as that is the taxpayer feeding children instead of their parents.
I’m actually a huge fan of breakfast clubs in particular. Good nutrition is a key part of education. Free school meals are a bit of a blunt instrument but they serve a role.
However:
- feeding kids during holidays as well represents a massive erosion of the concept of parental responsibility. If you think benefits are not enough then stand up and argue for an increase in benefits - I really dislike the “why do you want kids to go hungry” line of argument if you oppose extension. It’s manipulative bullshit.
If the parents had the money they would feed their kids. They don't. And thats not because they are are crackheads as that Tory MP suggested. So the choice is either direct application of service provision or they go hungry.
Either way they are going to do shit at school because you don't want to pay. Hence the need to spin it as anything other than what it is.
The current approach does have a big problem - which is that if you have a tight budget or cannot budget at all the sudden (and yes I know School holidays are scheduled but remember the issue here is potentially dysfunctional parents) need to find £10-20 to pay for breakfast / lunch is something a fair number of people cannot cope with.
Now I haven't a clue what the fix is but there is an issue there regardless of Charle's viewpoint that the parents should be able to manage. The simple fact is that a lot of parents simply can't.
And I've seen degree educated parents (who have then drawn very dire and unlucky hands) who have got themselves into this situation.
My view wasn’t “the parents should be able to manage”
It is: if the welfare system isn’t giving them enough money to feed their kids it needs to be increased. Imposition of free school meals demeans parents and undermines the concept of responsibility and the family unit.
Free School meals exist because it's easier than the other options (believe me as a school Governor for 8 years in an area with 30% getting free school meals) you see every level of disfunction going.
The only other fix would be a lot more work for social services - free school meals allow big problems to be hidden.
I sometime wonder what would happen if we expanded the tiny number of state boarding schools, with the actual boarding as free.....
I suspect a lot of children would jump at the chance.
"Ross Coulthart is a Multi-award-winning investigative journalist with over three decades experience in newspapers and television, including reporting for The Sydney Morning Herald "
It's long, but really, really interesting for a number of reasons (not all to do with UAP stuff)
Also, some of you will recall that Luis Elizondo had made a statement about how the world would react if they knew what he knew - first word he used was "Somber"
Anyway - the very last thing this guy talks about is Elizondo - who he is and what roles he played in US DOD.
That was interesting in its own right and certainly gave some perspective I was not fully aware of
Anyway, I've been adding to that visualisation I've been using. (@Topping - look away now; this won't fit with your worldview of me).
I think throughout this pandemic you have been a leading light on PB in trying to get to the figures and make assessments and draw some conclusions and of course I think you have done this out of a genuine concern for peoples' well-being.
The point we are discussing now is the reasons for vaccinating children which, for the risks they face in getting Covid and also once they have the disease, is in my opinion not a slam dunk.
Professor Dingwall and I completely agree with you on vaccinating children
I suspect a lot of children would jump at the chance.
I joke about sending the little 'un to boarding school aged eight (the same age a friend of mine started). Mrs J absolutely hates the idea of boarding school.
On the other hand, the little 'un loves the idea. He's an only child, but a very sociable one, and the idea of being with his friends all the time appeal to him. We're also fortunate that he loves school, and wants to spend more time there. (Hopefully that's not because he doesn't want to spend time with us...)
I'm unsure if the reality of boarding school would match up with the image I've sold him.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
As a commercial train operator trying to sell tickets, I’m assuming that they are not interested in annoying potential customers.
I realise PBers spend every waking hour trying to wind folk up, however, back in the real world, most people aren’t like that.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Peter Kyle making mincemeat of his Tory rival on Politics Live
Good hour for Labour
You need a lot of 'good hours' between now and next GE 2024...
Indeed and i cant see Labour under SKS having a lot of good hours but its a start.
One of the weird things about Starmer is that he doesn't do "angry" very well. It never really lands, it always feels like an act.
Once you have spent a few years reading the depositions and court papers and seeing the photos that the DPP has to look at day in day out it is not easy to get really angry at the ups and downs of politics and the mistakes and circumlocutions of decent but flawed people doing their best from their perch on the greasy pole in a liberal democracy.
That is a very good point, and would explain why Starmer's anger sometimes comes across as a bit flat. He maybe needs to find another way of pitching his complaints and arguments.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
The top language in the EU ...
If it winds up Brexiteers and/or Unionists, fine by me! I’ll encourage this usage.
Anyway, the English language derives from what is now northwest Germany/southern Denmark, so it is thoroughly mainlandish.
That is nonsense. The language that those that call themselves Scots use (and often mangle unintelligibly) , known as English (even when Nicola Sturgeon speaks it), may have it's roots in Anglo-Frisian, but it is also a mixture of Norse and Old Norman, not forgetting the influence of Latin and French. Like all the peoples of these islands it is a mixture of influences and is all the richer for it.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
Given that it's policy to offer anyone under 30 a vaccine that is not AZ, what is the relevance of the risk of blood clots from AZ?
(I know there are possible risks from the other vaccines too, but someone, may have been Andy, set out a comparison of risks a day or two ago)
I'm also in the probably makes sense to offer vaccination to children (based on risk-benefit, getting vaccinated should be in their interests) but not to delay unlocking until that has happened (costs of lockdown/school interruption to children very likely outweigh the risks of Covid)
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
It might be EU English, which is its own distinct dialect:
comitology - EU committee process European solidarity - we want your money universal solution - more powers for the EU subsidiarity - pardon?
etc. etc.
As opposed to Boris Johnson's Etonian English: Yes,well, jolly good japes, er er er er, have I ever shagged you before? er er er er
Have I got this right? You were sending your daughter to the £32k a year (Jeeeesus...) American School London and pulled her out because they were teaching students about white privilege?
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of white privilege to many. Even to those of us who are white who don't have a spare £32k a year for school fees.
Quite the opposite to me Rochdale!
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of money privilege to many. It has nothing to do with skin colour.
I would not be remotely surprised that many of those able to afford to send their kids to the school would be non-white and the notion that a white kid from Rochdale, or Birkenhead, or Hartlepool etc is "privileged" while a kid going to the ASL school because their parents can afford to pay £32k per year isn't due to their skin colour rather shows what is wrong with this ridiculous idea.
I'm not intending to disappear down this particular cul-de-sac and have already posted that class has as much to do with it as race. Its just that most of the people who manage to get into the stratified upper atmosphere of A+++ are white.
The real outrage about "white privilege" shouldn't be that it self-evidently is there for a tiny minority, it should be that those people then work very hard to keep the WWC in the gutter.
We saw the ludicrous situation last week of "concerned" Tories unhappy that poor white kids do so badly in school. The same Tories consistently vote to cut schools budgets, cut council services budgets and even not to feed them in the holidays and then wonder why their kids do so badly in school...
Why do you think the taxpayer should feed children instead of their parents?
Says the chap who can afford £32k pa per child for school fees. Are you against Free School Meals for poor families, Charles? Presumably you are, as that is the taxpayer feeding children instead of their parents.
I’m actually a huge fan of breakfast clubs in particular. Good nutrition is a key part of education. Free school meals are a bit of a blunt instrument but they serve a role.
However:
- feeding kids during holidays as well represents a massive erosion of the concept of parental responsibility. If you think benefits are not enough then stand up and argue for an increase in benefits - I really dislike the “why do you want kids to go hungry” line of argument if you oppose extension. It’s manipulative bullshit.
If the parents had the money they would feed their kids. They don't. And thats not because they are are crackheads as that Tory MP suggested. So the choice is either direct application of service provision or they go hungry.
Either way they are going to do shit at school because you don't want to pay. Hence the need to spin it as anything other than what it is.
The current approach does have a big problem - which is that if you have a tight budget or cannot budget at all the sudden (and yes I know School holidays are scheduled but remember the issue here is potentially dysfunctional parents) need to find £10-20 to pay for breakfast / lunch is something a fair number of people cannot cope with.
Now I haven't a clue what the fix is but there is an issue there regardless of Charle's viewpoint that the parents should be able to manage. The simple fact is that a lot of parents simply can't.
And I've seen degree educated parents (who have then drawn very dire and unlucky hands) who have got themselves into this situation.
My view wasn’t “the parents should be able to manage”
It is: if the welfare system isn’t giving them enough money to feed their kids it needs to be increased. Imposition of free school meals demeans parents and undermines the concept of responsibility and the family unit.
So your viewpoint is that the parents should be given the money and then decide whether to use it to pay for packed lunches or school meals.
We've been there - which is why free school dinners first appeared, as it was the only way it was possible to ensure children of dysfunctional parents got at least 1 decent meal a day.
And my biggest issue every September / October was quietly trying to find the parents who qualified for free school meals and getting them to actually apply for them. If you've ever dealt with people on low income an awful lot of people won't seek the help they actually qualify for.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
It is quite remarkable to see the extent to which companies in Europe operate in English, in day to day meetings etc.
I used to work for a very large international French company. They mandated over 10 years ago that all international meetings should be conducted in English. However, there were still occasions if there was a large French presence in a meeting they would start having side-conversations in French. This used to really annoy a Polish colleague of mine who used to tell them quite strongly to speak in English. I never wanted to let on that whilst not great at speaking French I could understand most of what they were saying. Far better to keep that to myself!
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Do we know the "full effects" of covid ?
Do we know the full effects of posting to PB with no capitals in your username?
Have I got this right? You were sending your daughter to the £32k a year (Jeeeesus...) American School London and pulled her out because they were teaching students about white privilege?
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of white privilege to many. Even to those of us who are white who don't have a spare £32k a year for school fees.
Quite the opposite to me Rochdale!
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of money privilege to many. It has nothing to do with skin colour.
I would not be remotely surprised that many of those able to afford to send their kids to the school would be non-white and the notion that a white kid from Rochdale, or Birkenhead, or Hartlepool etc is "privileged" while a kid going to the ASL school because their parents can afford to pay £32k per year isn't due to their skin colour rather shows what is wrong with this ridiculous idea.
I'm not intending to disappear down this particular cul-de-sac and have already posted that class has as much to do with it as race. Its just that most of the people who manage to get into the stratified upper atmosphere of A+++ are white.
The real outrage about "white privilege" shouldn't be that it self-evidently is there for a tiny minority, it should be that those people then work very hard to keep the WWC in the gutter.
We saw the ludicrous situation last week of "concerned" Tories unhappy that poor white kids do so badly in school. The same Tories consistently vote to cut schools budgets, cut council services budgets and even not to feed them in the holidays and then wonder why their kids do so badly in school...
Why do you think the taxpayer should feed children instead of their parents?
Says the chap who can afford £32k pa per child for school fees. Are you against Free School Meals for poor families, Charles? Presumably you are, as that is the taxpayer feeding children instead of their parents.
I’m actually a huge fan of breakfast clubs in particular. Good nutrition is a key part of education. Free school meals are a bit of a blunt instrument but they serve a role.
However:
- feeding kids during holidays as well represents a massive erosion of the concept of parental responsibility. If you think benefits are not enough then stand up and argue for an increase in benefits - I really dislike the “why do you want kids to go hungry” line of argument if you oppose extension. It’s manipulative bullshit.
If the parents had the money they would feed their kids. They don't. And thats not because they are are crackheads as that Tory MP suggested. So the choice is either direct application of service provision or they go hungry.
Either way they are going to do shit at school because you don't want to pay. Hence the need to spin it as anything other than what it is.
The current approach does have a big problem - which is that if you have a tight budget or cannot budget at all the sudden (and yes I know School holidays are scheduled but remember the issue here is potentially dysfunctional parents) need to find £10-20 to pay for breakfast / lunch is something a fair number of people cannot cope with.
Now I haven't a clue what the fix is but there is an issue there regardless of Charle's viewpoint that the parents should be able to manage. The simple fact is that a lot of parents simply can't.
And I've seen degree educated parents (who have then drawn very dire and unlucky hands) who have got themselves into this situation.
My view wasn’t “the parents should be able to manage”
It is: if the welfare system isn’t giving them enough money to feed their kids it needs to be increased. Imposition of free school meals demeans parents and undermines the concept of responsibility and the family unit.
I don't think my parents felt demeaned when me and my brother and sister got free school meals for a while back in the 1970s. They felt grateful as it was one less thing they had to worry about. It didn't last long, but it was a massive help through a tricky period.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
As a commercial train operator trying to sell tickets, I’m assuming that they are not interested in annoying potential customers.
I realise PBers spend every waking hour trying to wind folk up, however, back in the real world, most people aren’t like that.
You nats really do suffer badly from Psychological projection lol.
Quick note for the Drakeford cult - South West England now has better stats than Wales (1st + 2nd) so it looks like a large measure of the Welsh success is just about being older and paler than England where the figures are ruined by London -
Have I got this right? You were sending your daughter to the £32k a year (Jeeeesus...) American School London and pulled her out because they were teaching students about white privilege?
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of white privilege to many. Even to those of us who are white who don't have a spare £32k a year for school fees.
Quite the opposite to me Rochdale!
£32k a year on school fees might be seen as the literal embodiment of money privilege to many. It has nothing to do with skin colour.
I would not be remotely surprised that many of those able to afford to send their kids to the school would be non-white and the notion that a white kid from Rochdale, or Birkenhead, or Hartlepool etc is "privileged" while a kid going to the ASL school because their parents can afford to pay £32k per year isn't due to their skin colour rather shows what is wrong with this ridiculous idea.
I'm not intending to disappear down this particular cul-de-sac and have already posted that class has as much to do with it as race. Its just that most of the people who manage to get into the stratified upper atmosphere of A+++ are white.
The real outrage about "white privilege" shouldn't be that it self-evidently is there for a tiny minority, it should be that those people then work very hard to keep the WWC in the gutter.
We saw the ludicrous situation last week of "concerned" Tories unhappy that poor white kids do so badly in school. The same Tories consistently vote to cut schools budgets, cut council services budgets and even not to feed them in the holidays and then wonder why their kids do so badly in school...
Why do you think the taxpayer should feed children instead of their parents?
Says the chap who can afford £32k pa per child for school fees. Are you against Free School Meals for poor families, Charles? Presumably you are, as that is the taxpayer feeding children instead of their parents.
I’m actually a huge fan of breakfast clubs in particular. Good nutrition is a key part of education. Free school meals are a bit of a blunt instrument but they serve a role.
However:
- feeding kids during holidays as well represents a massive erosion of the concept of parental responsibility. If you think benefits are not enough then stand up and argue for an increase in benefits - I really dislike the “why do you want kids to go hungry” line of argument if you oppose extension. It’s manipulative bullshit.
If the parents had the money they would feed their kids. They don't. And thats not because they are are crackheads as that Tory MP suggested. So the choice is either direct application of service provision or they go hungry.
Either way they are going to do shit at school because you don't want to pay. Hence the need to spin it as anything other than what it is.
The current approach does have a big problem - which is that if you have a tight budget or cannot budget at all the sudden (and yes I know School holidays are scheduled but remember the issue here is potentially dysfunctional parents) need to find £10-20 to pay for breakfast / lunch is something a fair number of people cannot cope with.
Now I haven't a clue what the fix is but there is an issue there regardless of Charle's viewpoint that the parents should be able to manage. The simple fact is that a lot of parents simply can't.
And I've seen degree educated parents (who have then drawn very dire and unlucky hands) who have got themselves into this situation.
My view wasn’t “the parents should be able to manage”
It is: if the welfare system isn’t giving them enough money to feed their kids it needs to be increased. Imposition of free school meals demeans parents and undermines the concept of responsibility and the family unit.
I don't think my parents felt demeaned when me and my brother and sister got free school meals for a while back in the 1970s. They felt grateful as it was one less thing they had to worry about. It didn't last long, but it was a massive help through a tricky period.
Huge call to think that @Charles doesn't have personal experience of free school meals.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
Given that it's policy to offer anyone under 30 a vaccine that is not AZ, what is the relevance of the risk of blood clots from AZ?
(I know there are possible risks from the other vaccines too, but someone, may have been Andy, set out a comparison of risks a day or two ago)
I'm also in the probably makes sense to offer vaccination to children (based on risk-benefit, getting vaccinated should be in their interests) but not to delay unlocking until that has happened (costs of lockdown/school interruption to children very likely outweigh the risks of Covid)
The issue was side effects for the Pfizer vaccine (myocarditis) which were something like 7 per million, IIRC.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
It is quite remarkable to see the extent to which companies in Europe operate in English, in day to day meetings etc.
I used to work for a very large international French company. They mandated over 10 years ago that all international meetings should be conducted in English. However, there were still occasions if there was a large French presence in a meeting they would start having side-conversations in French. This used to really annoy a Polish colleague of mine who used to tell them quite strongly to speak in English. I never wanted to let on that whilst not great at speaking French I could understand most of what they were saying. Far better to keep that to myself!
I was quite astonished when I first encountered this - in my case, English in the Netherlands. It was impossible to learn Dutch, since everyone did everything in English. You could attempt to plead with them to speak Dutch, but they kept switching to English.
Apparently much joy was created by Afrikaaners speaking Afrikans in meetings, though. Apparently this has much of the flavour of someone speaking in Anglo-Saxon to English speakers.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
Given that it's policy to offer anyone under 30 a vaccine that is not AZ, what is the relevance of the risk of blood clots from AZ?
(I know there are possible risks from the other vaccines too, but someone, may have been Andy, set out a comparison of risks a day or two ago)
I'm also in the probably makes sense to offer vaccination to children (based on risk-benefit, getting vaccinated should be in their interests) but not to delay unlocking until that has happened (costs of lockdown/school interruption to children very likely outweigh the risks of Covid)
The issue was side effects for the Pfizer vaccine (myocarditis) which were something like 7 per million, IIRC.
Indeed, but Topping asked about the AZ vaccine.
The evidence appears to be that the risks from the vaccine that would be given (Pfizer, possibly Moderna) are much lower than from Covid, but we could do with more data - and Covid risk per unit time of course varies with prevalence which varies with how many adults have been vaccinated, while vaccine risks stay the same.
Edit: Reading your post again, I think you're providing useful information on Pfizer, rather than misunderstanding the point of my post - I think I misread what you meant.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
It is quite remarkable to see the extent to which companies in Europe operate in English, in day to day meetings etc.
I used to work for a very large international French company. They mandated over 10 years ago that all international meetings should be conducted in English. However, there were still occasions if there was a large French presence in a meeting they would start having side-conversations in French. This used to really annoy a Polish colleague of mine who used to tell them quite strongly to speak in English. I never wanted to let on that whilst not great at speaking French I could understand most of what they were saying. Far better to keep that to myself!
Yep - my German skills are appalling for everything except at listening - which freaks out Germans who don't know that bit. As I would often play the idiotic Brit abroad (mainly for my own entertainment value as it allowed me to get away with virtually anything) those who knew me found it hilarious when I would respond to an interesting question with an English response.
Mr. Dickson, by that line of reasoning, Scotland isn't Scottish.
Which of course it is not, not in a homogeneous sense anyway. My view is that the only way the Scots should be allowed another referendum is if they agree that they will need to manage to get majorities in all parts of Scotland for independence, not just relying on their weight of numbers of swiveleyed English haters in Glasgow. It should also be a given that if Borders and/or Shetland wishes to remain part of the UK they can
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
Not really. My argument would be its a balance of risks in every case. For vulnerable people and elderly people the risks are very heavily in favour of vaccination undoubtedly.
For healthy young people, Professor Dingwall implies that, in the case of covid, gaining immunity by infection might be at least on a par with vaccination, risk wise.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
What did you have in mind ?
We don't know what the 'full effects' of Covid are, either. But we've far better evidence of long term consequences of that, than for any long term consequences (other than the very rare side effects noted) of the vaccines, if any. Note that vaccines, unlike viruses, are completely eliminated from the body in a fairly short space of time.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
It is quite remarkable to see the extent to which companies in Europe operate in English, in day to day meetings etc.
I used to work for a very large international French company. They mandated over 10 years ago that all international meetings should be conducted in English. However, there were still occasions if there was a large French presence in a meeting they would start having side-conversations in French. This used to really annoy a Polish colleague of mine who used to tell them quite strongly to speak in English. I never wanted to let on that whilst not great at speaking French I could understand most of what they were saying. Far better to keep that to myself!
A French skiing instructor once told me that he learned to his cost that some English people may be too nervous to speak French but it doesn't always mean they don't understand it! He was rude enough to us in English, goodness knows what he said to his friends in French.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Right. So a 0.045% risk of a child 0-17 being hospitalised with Covid.
What about the "well over a hundred thousand children with chronic illness"?
Using the lower confidence limit, the ONS estimate of people by age, and an approximate 30% of children infected so far, you'd get 382,000.
Even if you halved the lower confidence limit and assumed a mere 20% of children had had it, you'd still have well over a hundred thousand children with long-lasting symptoms.
I've got a few fag packets also. If children are relatively unaffected by Covid what on earth makes you think that they will be as susceptible to "Long Covid" as adults?
5-20% seems massively high. I don't know anyone who reckons they have or had long covid. Or else the definition of long covid includes anyone still not feeling 100% right six weeks later (I know a few who fall into that category). And of the children I know who've had it, I only know one for whom it was anything more than a day or so of feeling a bit grotty. Anecdata/small subsample caveat, and all the children I know are aged 11 and below - may be different for teenagers.
There's a clear step change around 12 years old in ability to catch and transmit. In addition the drugs haven't finished trials on 11 and under. The 0 - 11 yr old argument is in a different place to 12 - 17.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
The argument is a moving target - the risk from COVID depends on the prevalence of COVID.
1) COVID (type Delta) will carry on expanding, in terms of cases. 2) This increases the risk of getting COVID 3) At some point, before everyone gets COVID, the risk of AZN (blood clots) will be less than the risk of serious consequences from catching COVID 4) Slightly before that, the risk of getting heart issues with Pfizer will become less than the risk for COVID, for a given cohort.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
The argument is a moving target - the risk from COVID depends on the prevalence of COVID.
1) COVID (type Delta) will carry on expanding, in terms of cases. 2) This increases the risk of getting COVID 3) At some point, before everyone gets COVID, the risk of AZN (blood clots) will be less than the risk of serious consequences from catching COVID 4) Slightly before that, the risk of getting heart issues with Pfizer will become less than the risk for COVID, for a given cohort.
The appeal to spurious "long term" vaccine issues is as wrong headed as that Covid immunity dark matter nonsense.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
Not really. My argument would be its a balance of risks in every case. For vulnerable people and elderly people the risks are very heavily in favour of vaccination undoubtedly.
For healthy young people, Professor Dingwall implies that, in the case of covid, gaining immunity by infection might be at least on a par with vaccination, risk wise.
At least on a par.
Then why were you scaremongering about the possibility of currently unknown long-term side effects (which I think is not a concern at all scientifically) when there are very real side-effects you could have used to make your case?
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
It is quite remarkable to see the extent to which companies in Europe operate in English, in day to day meetings etc.
I used to work for a very large international French company. They mandated over 10 years ago that all international meetings should be conducted in English. However, there were still occasions if there was a large French presence in a meeting they would start having side-conversations in French. This used to really annoy a Polish colleague of mine who used to tell them quite strongly to speak in English. I never wanted to let on that whilst not great at speaking French I could understand most of what they were saying. Far better to keep that to myself!
Yep - my German skills are appalling for everything except at listening - which freaks out Germans who don't know that bit. As I would often play the idiotic Brit abroad (mainly for my own entertainment value as it allowed me to get away with virtually anything) those who knew me found it hilarious when I would respond to an interesting question with an English response.
My problem with every foreign language I have tried to learn is that my listening skills are near zero. I'd be able to formulate questions with good grammar and pronunciation then when the other person would reply I'd have no idea what they were saying to me. I think I'm just a very bad listener, even in English.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
It's certainly not immoral to think that (it is, in any case, due to 'may' a bit of a non-statement - I had AZN and I may have been better off taking my chances with infection, but probably not). It may be incorrect.
The ethical thing to do is compare the evidence as well as possible and then make a judgement, based on that, as to whether to make the vaccine available for younger people. If the evidence is stongly in benefit > risk then make it available* and let people make a choice. If not, then don't.
*By which I mean free to anyone who wants it. It's already approved, which means those who really want it will presumably be able to pay for it privately in the end, whatever the government conclusion
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
The argument is a moving target - the risk from COVID depends on the prevalence of COVID.
1) COVID (type Delta) will carry on expanding, in terms of cases. 2) This increases the risk of getting COVID 3) At some point, before everyone gets COVID, the risk of AZN (blood clots) will be less than the risk of serious consequences from catching COVID 4) Slightly before that, the risk of getting heart issues with Pfizer will become less than the risk for COVID, for a given cohort.
The appeal to spurious "long term" vaccine issues is as wrong headed as that Covid immunity dark matter nonsense.
"dark matter" - do you mix it in with the Jif and the hot broth?
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Yes this is antivaxxer bollox. The vaccines (not including the Russian and Chinese) have been subject to highly rigorous randomised clinical trials that have demonstrated above standard requirement for clinical safety and efficacy. The data has been substantial. The urgency was possible because of the investment put in and the numbers and concentration patients with Covid in certain areas where the trials took place .
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Stop talking bollox. You clearly do not have the first clue what you are talking about.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
It is quite remarkable to see the extent to which companies in Europe operate in English, in day to day meetings etc.
I used to work for a very large international French company. They mandated over 10 years ago that all international meetings should be conducted in English. However, there were still occasions if there was a large French presence in a meeting they would start having side-conversations in French. This used to really annoy a Polish colleague of mine who used to tell them quite strongly to speak in English. I never wanted to let on that whilst not great at speaking French I could understand most of what they were saying. Far better to keep that to myself!
Yep - my German skills are appalling for everything except at listening - which freaks out Germans who don't know that bit. As I would often play the idiotic Brit abroad (mainly for my own entertainment value as it allowed me to get away with virtually anything) those who knew me found it hilarious when I would respond to an interesting question with an English response.
My problem with every foreign language I have tried to learn is that my listening skills are near zero. I'd be able to formulate questions with good grammar and pronunciation then when the other person would reply I'd have no idea what they were saying to me. I think I'm just a very bad listener, even in English.
I saw Dingwall's arguments on twitter this morning - to my mind they are a nonsense, I sincerely hope he is in the minority of people within the JCVI.
Robert Dingwall Flag of Scotland Flag of European Union Reunite @rwjdingwall · 4h Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
It's certainly not immoral to think that (it is, in any case, due to 'may' a bit of a non-statement - I had AZN and I may have been better off taking my chances with infection, but probably not). It may be incorrect.
The ethical thing to do is compare the evidence as well as possible and then make a judgement, based on that, as to whether to make the vaccine available for younger people. If the evidence is stongly in benefit > risk then make it available* and let people make a choice. If not, then don't.
*By which I mean free to anyone who wants it. It's already approved, which means those who really want it will presumably be able to pay for it privately in the end, whatever the government conclusion
Is the evidence strongly benefit > risk?
Risk of hospitalisation (we don't know more than that) from Covid in 0-17yr olds = 0.045%
Paxman is a giant in retrospect, I guess. An era now gone
That BBC woman’s angle is quite astonishing. And Galloway is completely right - there is no ‘Labour vote’ - there are voters. That’s it. Scotland shows what happens when you complacently presume a ‘Labour vote’ exists and will always exist
Labour are teetering on the brink of the abyss, here. They could lose northern England forever, and then that’s it
I suspect a lot of children would jump at the chance.
I joke about sending the little 'un to boarding school aged eight (the same age a friend of mine started). Mrs J absolutely hates the idea of boarding school.
On the other hand, the little 'un loves the idea. He's an only child, but a very sociable one, and the idea of being with his friends all the time appeal to him. We're also fortunate that he loves school, and wants to spend more time there. (Hopefully that's not because he doesn't want to spend time with us...)
I'm unsure if the reality of boarding school would match up with the image I've sold him.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
Yeah, but that's talking about the (real) short-term risks, isn't it?
No idea.
Then why post it in reply if you don't know what it is referring to? I was mainly picking up on the claim that there might be unknown long-term side effects.
I’ve seen various flags being used to represent the English language - the Union flag, the St George’s cross, the Stars and Stripes, the Irish tricolour etc - but this is a new one on me!
Are you sure they aren't just doing it to annoy the French - I seem to remember the French have started to try to get the EU to stop English from being the default language.
It is quite remarkable to see the extent to which companies in Europe operate in English, in day to day meetings etc.
I used to work for a very large international French company. They mandated over 10 years ago that all international meetings should be conducted in English. However, there were still occasions if there was a large French presence in a meeting they would start having side-conversations in French. This used to really annoy a Polish colleague of mine who used to tell them quite strongly to speak in English. I never wanted to let on that whilst not great at speaking French I could understand most of what they were saying. Far better to keep that to myself!
Yep - my German skills are appalling for everything except at listening - which freaks out Germans who don't know that bit. As I would often play the idiotic Brit abroad (mainly for my own entertainment value as it allowed me to get away with virtually anything) those who knew me found it hilarious when I would respond to an interesting question with an English response.
My problem with every foreign language I have tried to learn is that my listening skills are near zero. I'd be able to formulate questions with good grammar and pronunciation then when the other person would reply I'd have no idea what they were saying to me. I think I'm just a very bad listener, even in English.
What I've found is that I'm sat in a room where I know the exact context of the conversation and have nothing else to concentrate on (bar emails) listening is actually easy. plus it's fun (and useful) to know what the side conversations are when people really don't know you are listening (remember I'm happy to play the English fool for fun as it makes my life easier).
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
It's certainly not immoral to think that (it is, in any case, due to 'may' a bit of a non-statement - I had AZN and I may have been better off taking my chances with infection, but probably not). It may be incorrect.
The ethical thing to do is compare the evidence as well as possible and then make a judgement, based on that, as to whether to make the vaccine available for younger people. If the evidence is stongly in benefit > risk then make it available* and let people make a choice. If not, then don't.
*By which I mean free to anyone who wants it. It's already approved, which means those who really want it will presumably be able to pay for it privately in the end, whatever the government conclusion
Is the evidence strongly benefit > risk?
Risk of hospitalisation (we don't know more than that) from Covid in 0-17yr olds = 0.045%
He is absolutely magnificent. Awful, appalling, self-serving. But like any other political agitator he has that x-factor which you have to stop and listen to.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
Yeah, but that's talking about the (real) short-term risks, isn't it?
No idea.
Then why post it in reply if you don't know what it is referring to? I was mainly picking up on the claim that there might be unknown long-term side effects.
I imagine unknown long-term side effects is a subset of "possible risk[s] of a vaccine".
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
It's certainly not immoral to think that (it is, in any case, due to 'may' a bit of a non-statement - I had AZN and I may have been better off taking my chances with infection, but probably not). It may be incorrect.
The ethical thing to do is compare the evidence as well as possible and then make a judgement, based on that, as to whether to make the vaccine available for younger people. If the evidence is stongly in benefit > risk then make it available* and let people make a choice. If not, then don't.
*By which I mean free to anyone who wants it. It's already approved, which means those who really want it will presumably be able to pay for it privately in the end, whatever the government conclusion
Is the evidence strongly benefit > risk?
Risk of hospitalisation (we don't know more than that) from Covid in 0-17yr olds = 0.045%
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
Yeah, but that's talking about the (real) short-term risks, isn't it?
No idea.
Then why post it in reply if you don't know what it is referring to? I was mainly picking up on the claim that there might be unknown long-term side effects.
I imagine unknown long-term side effects is a subset of "possible risk[s] of a vaccine".
I don't think that is a safe assumption. My point from the start has been that there is no concern scientifically about long-term effects given how the vaccines operate.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
It's certainly not immoral to think that (it is, in any case, due to 'may' a bit of a non-statement - I had AZN and I may have been better off taking my chances with infection, but probably not). It may be incorrect.
The ethical thing to do is compare the evidence as well as possible and then make a judgement, based on that, as to whether to make the vaccine available for younger people. If the evidence is stongly in benefit > risk then make it available* and let people make a choice. If not, then don't.
*By which I mean free to anyone who wants it. It's already approved, which means those who really want it will presumably be able to pay for it privately in the end, whatever the government conclusion
Is the evidence strongly benefit > risk?
Risk of hospitalisation (we don't know more than that) from Covid in 0-17yr olds = 0.045%
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Yep.
The antivaxxers and Putin-bots don't care, though. When asked which vaccines have ever been found to have long-term side-effects that were not apparent within the first few weeks, they tend not to answer.
I saw Dingwall's arguments on twitter this morning - to my mind they are a nonsense, I sincerely hope he is in the minority of people within the JCVI.
Robert Dingwall Flag of Scotland Flag of European Union Reunite @rwjdingwall · 4h Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine
It's a shocking argument.
I don't feel especially strongly about this, but it strikes me as odd that schools are open if it was being contemplated that kids should get the vaccine. I get that we're still working our way through adults, so perhaps the JCVI don't need to decide just yet, but as far as I can tell, children are currently getting immunity the natural way. If they do decide that kids should be vaccinated, most of them will have probably had COVID.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
It's certainly not immoral to think that (it is, in any case, due to 'may' a bit of a non-statement - I had AZN and I may have been better off taking my chances with infection, but probably not). It may be incorrect.
The ethical thing to do is compare the evidence as well as possible and then make a judgement, based on that, as to whether to make the vaccine available for younger people. If the evidence is stongly in benefit > risk then make it available* and let people make a choice. If not, then don't.
*By which I mean free to anyone who wants it. It's already approved, which means those who really want it will presumably be able to pay for it privately in the end, whatever the government conclusion
Is the evidence strongly benefit > risk?
Risk of hospitalisation (we don't know more than that) from Covid in 0-17yr olds = 0.045%
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Yep.
The antivaxxers and Putin-bots don't care, though. When asked which vaccines have ever been found to have long-term side-effects that were not apparent within the first few weeks, they tend not to answer.
smear, smear, insult smear.
Here's a question for your tiny little mind Andy. How could a long term side-effect become apparent after a few weeks ?
NEW with @GeorgeWParker: Johnson govt is investigating what legal action can be taken to stop Dominic Cummings from publishing further private information and messages.
But insiders are fearful that acting against Cummings could turn him into a “martyr"
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Yep.
The antivaxxers and Putin-bots don't care, though. When asked which vaccines have ever been found to have long-term side-effects that were not apparent within the first few weeks, they tend not to answer.
smear, smear, insult smear.
Here's a question for your tiny little mind Andy. How could a long term side-effect become apparent after a few weeks ?
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Yep.
The antivaxxers and Putin-bots don't care, though. When asked which vaccines have ever been found to have long-term side-effects that were not apparent within the first few weeks, they tend not to answer.
smear, smear, insult smear.
Here's a question for your tiny little mind Andy. How could a long term side-effect become apparent after a few weeks ?
Hint: a few weeks is not a long time
Exactly. Side-effects that were not apparent after, say, 12 weeks, haven't later become apparent.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
Yeah, but that's talking about the (real) short-term risks, isn't it?
No idea.
Then why post it in reply if you don't know what it is referring to? I was mainly picking up on the claim that there might be unknown long-term side effects.
I imagine unknown long-term side effects is a subset of "possible risk[s] of a vaccine".
I don't think that is a safe assumption. My point from the start has been that there is no concern scientifically about long-term effects given how the vaccines operate.
We might wonder, then, why vaccines have in the past taken so much longer to develop and introduce, relative to covid ones.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
It's certainly not immoral to think that (it is, in any case, due to 'may' a bit of a non-statement - I had AZN and I may have been better off taking my chances with infection, but probably not). It may be incorrect.
The ethical thing to do is compare the evidence as well as possible and then make a judgement, based on that, as to whether to make the vaccine available for younger people. If the evidence is stongly in benefit > risk then make it available* and let people make a choice. If not, then don't.
*By which I mean free to anyone who wants it. It's already approved, which means those who really want it will presumably be able to pay for it privately in the end, whatever the government conclusion
Is the evidence strongly benefit > risk?
Risk of hospitalisation (we don't know more than that) from Covid in 0-17yr olds = 0.045%
Anyway. Enough engaging with the troll. Should always remember it's like mud-wrestling with a pig. You'll get just as dirty, and the pig enjoys it more.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
Yeah, but that's talking about the (real) short-term risks, isn't it?
No idea.
Then why post it in reply if you don't know what it is referring to? I was mainly picking up on the claim that there might be unknown long-term side effects.
I imagine unknown long-term side effects is a subset of "possible risk[s] of a vaccine".
I don't think that is a safe assumption. My point from the start has been that there is no concern scientifically about long-term effects given how the vaccines operate.
We might wonder, then, why vaccines have in the past taken so much longer to develop and introduce, relative to covid ones.
Why on earth were they wasting so much time?
It's been explained to you before. So why waste our time giving you the answer again? You don't like it, so you'll ignore it again.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Yep.
The antivaxxers and Putin-bots don't care, though. When asked which vaccines have ever been found to have long-term side-effects that were not apparent within the first few weeks, they tend not to answer.
smear, smear, insult smear.
Here's a question for your tiny little mind Andy. How could a long term side-effect become apparent after a few weeks ?
Hint: a few weeks is not a long time
His point, for your tiny mind, is that if you are going to wave around "long term side effects" of vaccines, you need to provide an example of a side effect, in a vaccine, that wasn't apparent in a few weeks.
I see the zero covidians new goal post moving is because school kids are getting covid we have to stop everything, until we get them jabbed.
Surely we just have to jab everyone they might infect.
@Andy_Cooke yesterday was saying there were "Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness."
I can't find the stats but I'm sure he'll provide them for me when he's next on.
But his was a response to why are we closing down the country on account of a group of people (children) who are at very low risk.
NB - I did not state that we had to close the country to protect them. I've stated that we are highly unlikely to want to do that - but that we should not blithely assume that it will not be an issue for them. Could you provide a link to anywhere that I've said we should lockdown again to protect the kids?
As it happens, I think that schools breaking up will do a lot to help.
Yeah it was really a non-point you were making. You asked me, when I queried if Freedom Day would really be Freedom day when children might be kept from school, why I persisted "in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there".
Whereas you don't think it will cause delay to July 19th. So it was just hand wringing on your part for no obvious reason.
No, it wasn't. As @Malmesbury says, it was in the context of "why vaccinate children."
That's why. The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
What was the risk of the blood clot from the AZ vaccine? Was it much greater or lower than 0.045%?
A lot lower. To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million. (cf 10-20 per million)
Its quite impossible to make that utterly spurious claim, because the covid vaccines have been in existence for a much shorter time than many other vaccines. The time taken to develop them is also much shorter.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
Hasn’t this claim been dismissed because of the way vaccines work? It’s just scaremongering to suggest it.
Is Professor Dingwall of the the JCVI scaremongering when he implies the argument for vaccinating teenagers and children is still a live one and not full decided on any basis?
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
Aren’t you conflating two different issues? I’m referring to your claim that there could be long term effects of the vaccine that we don’t know about.
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine."
Yeah, but that's talking about the (real) short-term risks, isn't it?
No idea.
Then why post it in reply if you don't know what it is referring to? I was mainly picking up on the claim that there might be unknown long-term side effects.
I imagine unknown long-term side effects is a subset of "possible risk[s] of a vaccine".
I don't think that is a safe assumption. My point from the start has been that there is no concern scientifically about long-term effects given how the vaccines operate.
We might wonder, then, why vaccines have in the past taken so much longer to develop and introduce, relative to covid ones.
Why on earth were they wasting so much time?
Oh, I don't know, because there was no immediate rush perhaps? Vaccines all work in the same way, and I don't think there is any concern in the scientific community about a long-term side effect appearing after, say, three years.
Comments
The only other fix would be a lot more work for social services - free school meals allow big problems to be hidden.
We only got into this when I queried why children might be kept from school beyond "Freedom Day" and @Andy_Cooke came over all halo polishing but he agrees also.
Extending free school meals during holidays to those most in need might be the cheapest and easiest way of intervening meaningfully. I don't like it; I don't like the fact it's necessary. But in my relatively well-off, middle-class area, I know of people who are really struggling. I don't see why their kids should suffer.
(I quite liked the controversial Troubled Families Scheme, which appears to have died a death.)
The ONS figures from January were here; these are broken down by age and sex: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/adhocs/12788updatedestimatesoftheprevalenceoflongcovidsymptoms
Using the lower confidence limit, the ONS estimate of people by age, and an approximate 30% of children infected so far, you'd get 382,000.
Even if you halved the lower confidence limit and assumed a mere 20% of children had had it, you'd still have well over a hundred thousand children with long-lasting symptoms.
The chances of healthy children becoming sick from Covid are absolutely tiny.
That's why.
The risk-benefit calculation is very much in favour of it.
I don't understand why you persist in trying to be so superciliously unpleasant.
Scotland fans = Separatists = bad guys = pox-ridden
Please learn the PB rools.
They think like this it because the newspapers you read owned by other posh rich white people endlessly drill home the message to their readers how feckless and workshy they are. How the teachers in these schools aren't any better and aren't exams getting easier. How marvellously well off everyone is because so many opportunities so if they're dirt poor its their fault.
Thats what people then vote for. This is grinding poverty by government policy on behalf of people like you. If you wanted to change it then do so! Tell the party it is the wrong approach and a return to a big Thatcher-style 80s safety net is the way forward. You're happy to act pull your child out of a school who outrageously points out that £32k a year in fees is a privileged position, so why not act and lobby your mates up there to not treat people like scum?
comitology - EU committee process
European solidarity - we want your money
universal solution - more powers for the EU
subsidiarity - pardon?
etc. etc.
(@Topping - look away now; this won't fit with your worldview of me).
Incorporating numbers in hospital as well as cases-to-deaths to compare why this wave is not like the earlier ones.:
Anyway, the English language derives from what is now northwest Germany/southern Denmark, so it is thoroughly mainlandish.
As well as the same argument of all the other posters who think vaccinating children is suddenly a priority.
Is Dingwall an antivaxxer I wonder?
The screech every lockdown lunatic uses when they have lost an argument
To put onto the same scale (chances per million), it was somewhere between 10 per million and 20 per million (as the numbers are so low, it's very very hard to pick them out of the "noise" of naturally occurring blood clots)
0.045% is 450 per million.
(cf 10-20 per million)
The point we are discussing now is the reasons for vaccinating children which, for the risks they face in getting Covid and also once they have the disease, is in my opinion not a slam dunk.
And of the children I know who've had it, I only know one for whom it was anything more than a day or so of feeling a bit grotty.
Anecdata/small subsample caveat, and all the children I know are aged 11 and below - may be different for teenagers.
S: 3,887/3 (2,969/5)
W: 513/0 (213/1)
NI: 375/0 (188/0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM-xW8YsXKU&t=8951s
"Ross Coulthart is a Multi-award-winning investigative journalist with over three decades experience in newspapers and television, including reporting for The Sydney Morning Herald "
It's long, but really, really interesting for a number of reasons (not all to do with UAP stuff)
Also, some of you will recall that Luis Elizondo had made a statement about how the world would react if they knew what he knew - first word he used was "Somber"
Anyway - the very last thing this guy talks about is Elizondo - who he is and what roles he played in US DOD.
That was interesting in its own right and certainly gave some perspective I was not fully aware of
On the other hand, the little 'un loves the idea. He's an only child, but a very sociable one, and the idea of being with his friends all the time appeal to him. We're also fortunate that he loves school, and wants to spend more time there. (Hopefully that's not because he doesn't want to spend time with us...)
I'm unsure if the reality of boarding school would match up with the image I've sold him.
I realise PBers spend every waking hour trying to wind folk up, however, back in the real world, most people aren’t like that.
We simply don't know what the full effects might be.
(I know there are possible risks from the other vaccines too, but someone, may have been Andy, set out a comparison of risks a day or two ago)
I'm also in the probably makes sense to offer vaccination to children (based on risk-benefit, getting vaccinated should be in their interests) but not to delay unlocking until that has happened (costs of lockdown/school interruption to children very likely outweigh the risks of Covid)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/30/muslim-women-in-batley-and-spen-call-out-actions-of-loud-minority-of-men
We've been there - which is why free school dinners first appeared, as it was the only way it was possible to ensure children of dysfunctional parents got at least 1 decent meal a day.
And my biggest issue every September / October was quietly trying to find the parents who qualified for free school meals and getting them to actually apply for them. If you've ever dealt with people on low income an awful lot of people won't seek the help they actually qualify for.
Or are you just trying to shut down opposition to your bullsh*t argument?
https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1410229595966783500
Magnificent in its own way
https://twitter.com/mediaguido/status/1410181272668889095?s=21
Apparently much joy was created by Afrikaaners speaking Afrikans in meetings, though. Apparently this has much of the flavour of someone speaking in Anglo-Saxon to English speakers.
Says the good Prof (not me or @contrarian)
The evidence appears to be that the risks from the vaccine that would be given (Pfizer, possibly Moderna) are much lower than from Covid, but we could do with more data - and Covid risk per unit time of course varies with prevalence which varies with how many adults have been vaccinated, while vaccine risks stay the same.
Edit: Reading your post again, I think you're providing useful information on Pfizer, rather than misunderstanding the point of my post - I think I misread what you meant.
For healthy young people, Professor Dingwall implies that, in the case of covid, gaining immunity by infection might be at least on a par with vaccination, risk wise.
At least on a par.
We don't know what the 'full effects' of Covid are, either. But we've far better evidence of long term consequences of that, than for any long term consequences (other than the very rare side effects noted) of the vaccines, if any.
Note that vaccines, unlike viruses, are completely eliminated from the body in a fairly short space of time.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xIfj8dwrXJE
The 0 - 11 yr old argument is in a different place to 12 - 17.
1) COVID (type Delta) will carry on expanding, in terms of cases.
2) This increases the risk of getting COVID
3) At some point, before everyone gets COVID, the risk of AZN (blood clots) will be less than the risk of serious consequences from catching COVID
4) Slightly before that, the risk of getting heart issues with Pfizer will become less than the risk for COVID, for a given cohort.
The ethical thing to do is compare the evidence as well as possible and then make a judgement, based on that, as to whether to make the vaccine available for younger people. If the evidence is stongly in benefit > risk then make it available* and let people make a choice. If not, then don't.
*By which I mean free to anyone who wants it. It's already approved, which means those who really want it will presumably be able to pay for it privately in the end, whatever the government conclusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-ZwmXhpv7o
Robert Dingwall Flag of Scotland Flag of European Union Reunite
@rwjdingwall
·
4h
Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine
It's a shocking argument.
Risk of hospitalisation (we don't know more than that) from Covid in 0-17yr olds = 0.045%
That BBC woman’s angle is quite astonishing. And Galloway is completely right - there is no ‘Labour vote’ - there are voters. That’s it. Scotland shows what happens when you complacently presume a ‘Labour vote’ exists and will always exist
Labour are teetering on the brink of the abyss, here. They could lose northern England forever, and then that’s it
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/blood-clot-risk-from-covid-19-higher-than-after-vaccines-study-68675
The antivaxxers and Putin-bots don't care, though.
When asked which vaccines have ever been found to have long-term side-effects that were not apparent within the first few weeks, they tend not to answer.
smear, smear, insult smear.
Here's a question for your tiny little mind Andy. How could a long term side-effect become apparent after a few weeks ?
Hint: a few weeks is not a long time
But insiders are fearful that acting against Cummings could turn him into a “martyr"
https://www.ft.com/content/cbf42278-1a75-4acf-b5a7-788511754428
Side-effects that were not apparent after, say, 12 weeks, haven't later become apparent.
Why on earth were they wasting so much time?
Should always remember it's like mud-wrestling with a pig.
You'll get just as dirty, and the pig enjoys it more.
So why waste our time giving you the answer again? You don't like it, so you'll ignore it again.
Again, magnificent from the gorgeous one. An awful awful man but you can't help be entertained by him.