Vaccine Passport - Plan B

[Galley is our king]

3 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Okay; that changes it.

To be fair, some sources now reporting he said "with"

It's a sad day when you can't trust the press eh?

[Selred]

Just now, Galley is our king said:

To be fair, some sources now reporting he said "with"

It's a sad day when you can't trust the press eh?

According to the BBC it's with, not from. 

According to the Daily Mail, he said with, and they decided to headline it from. 

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, Galley is our king said:

To be fair, some sources now reporting he said "with"

It's a sad day when you can't trust the press eh?

Why don't you actually watch the video of him talking. He says 'with'...

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Of course new medicines would become available because people volunteer for the limited numbers trials leaving the majority as the control group.

This time the trials are topsy turvy because the trial group is the majority and the control group the minority.

If you think that we somehow know the side effects of the several vaccines already then have a look at the complexities of the Dengue fever vaccine which were certainly not foreseen in its first year of issuance.

The human body is an incredibly complex mechanism and viruses mutate unpredictability; the only sure way to be able to call relative safety of these vaccines as I would claim for the influenza vaccine is volume, achieved, and time, and there are years to go yet.

Assuming that the outcomes of the trials lead to identifying which of the competing vaccines is the safest in a few years then I will start having that particular vaccine on a yearly basis as I have done with the influenza vaccine for the last twenty years.

That is hardly being an "anti-vaxxer"; it is following the science.

Ah, you're happy for others to take the risk, just not you.

With your medical insight you also appear to have neglected:

All vaccines issued to date were subject to (as you call them) minority control trials;

Like all viruses the influenza versions mutate, such each season northern and southern hemisphere they're slightly different.

Using your 'science based logic' we might as well not bother developing vaccines at all given for each 5 year testing cycle you consider the safe minimum we'll have passed through a minimum 9 subsequent variations. Strange, therefore, you consent to having a flu vaccine that's barely a few months out of the lab but not one for a corona virus?

[Rebounder]

3 hours ago, 2015 said:

It is rather funny that those who despise the Tories on here and despise Boris Johnson yet still go along with every restriction he puts in place and his 'opposition' support him in doing so. 

I don't believe a word any politician or scientist come out with anymore - they are all corrupted by power, personal agenda's and money in my opinion.

Hardly anyone I know has done anything because Johnson and the Tories have told them too. In fact most have gone further particularly this time last year when it was fairly clear the government were ******* around. Also all the weird rules like being able to go to the pub, but not being able to do something that seemed much less risky. 

Political party didn't really come into it as most of us work in health care and so I guess see it from that angle. It made sense to try and limit the spread as much as possible. There's also that desire to want to help protect vulnerable people, either by stopping the spread, or supporting those that were isolating etc. Worth pointing out that none of us have been perfect in this so it's not a case of "I'm better than you."

I think generally the public have at times taken their own measures that were more proactive than the ones the government were suggesting. 

Of course if society was set up differently in the first place and preparations put in place then it probably wouldn't ever have got as bad. We'll hopefully learn a lot from this. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Rebounder

[Eddie Hitler]

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Using your 'science based logic' we might as well not bother developing vaccines at all given for each 5 year testing cycle you consider the safe minimum we'll have passed through a minimum 9 subsequent variations. Strange, therefore, you consent to having a flu vaccine that's barely a few months out of the lab but not one for a corona virus?

 

I don't know why that's in quotes; we all have brains and the opportunity to use them if we choose to do so.

The basic mechanism of the influenza vaccine has been in place for decades and is very safe; all that changes each year is the selection of the particular four strains to bundle into it.

There are currently multiple competing Covid vaccines; trials are not even sufficiently far advanced to have selected which is the safest.

They are experimental vaccines by any reasonable standards.

I wear a mask in shops, observe lockdown rules and take a LFT when required.

That I don't wish to form part of a medical experiment is a legitimate personal choice; and also one which you can't unmake when further information comes to light.

[Waconda]

It is not the deaths that is the major issue here (probably) the problem is that Omicron is very likely to make enough people ill due to it's increased transmissibility, that need hospital treatment therefore swamping the NHS.

There will have to be a lock down in January, as they are determined to leave the economy open for Xmas. - IMO.

 

[Kid in the Riot]

29 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

No, it isn't.

Whilst my initial reaction was for herd immunity it became clear that, whilst this could of course be achieved, it wouldn't happen until the NHS had been entirely swamped by cases so causing mass deaths.

So, with new information, I changed my view and supported lockdowns.

I still support lockdowns for the same reason.

With vaccines I regard them as still being in the experimental stage and think it reckless to be injecting the various vaccines into healthy people; especially children.

As I've said if I regarded myself as vulnerable then I would take them on a balance of risks; I'm not so I don't.

I have taken LFTs and see this as the sensible way to prevent spreading by otherwise healthy people rather than including them in the biggest experimental live trial of vaccines ever seen.

I note that you, in seeing that I didn't entirely toe the government line, leaped immediately to the conclusion that I don't agree with any if it.

This is what I meant by the government and media trying, and mostly succeeding, in creating an impression of polar opposite views which really isn't accurate.

You are entitled to your opinion, but certainly can't claim to be "following the science"; you are doing the polar opposite. And to justify it, you have come up with a fabricated belief system referring to the vaccine still being at "the experimental stage" and the rollout being a "live trial". You are using scientific terminology incorrectly to justify your (some might say) selfishness to not assist in society being able to return to a version of normality as quickly as possible.

The point has been made many times before, but thank god everyone didn't think like you, or we really would be in perpetual lockdowns, which oddly you can apparently justify to yourself. 

[Kid in the Riot]

5 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I don't know why that's in quotes; we all have brains and the opportunity to use them if we choose to do so.

The basic mechanism of the influenza vaccine has been in place for decades and is very safe; all that changes each year is the selection of the particular four strains to bundle into it.

There are currently multiple competing Covid vaccines; trials are not even sufficiently far advanced to have selected which is the safest.

They are experimental vaccines by any reasonable standards.

I wear a mask in shops, observe lockdown rules and take a LFT when required.

That I don't wish to form part of a medical experiment is a legitimate personal choice; and also one which you can't unmake when further information comes to light.

Nearly half the world's population has been double jabbed (3.3bn) and a total of 7.3bn vaccinations have been administered. 

How many more jabs are required for you to consider that the largest roll-out of vaccinations EVER, is not a trial?

[Eddie Hitler]

1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

You are entitled to your opinion, but certainly can't claim to be "following the science"; you are doing the polar opposite. And to justify it, you have come up with a fabricated belief system referring to the vaccine still being at "the experimental stage" and the rollout being a "live trial". You are using scientific terminology incorrectly to justify your (some might say) selfishness to not assist in society being able to return to a version of normality as quickly as possible.

The point has been made many times before, but thank god everyone didn't think like you, or we really would be in perpetual lockdowns, which oddly you can apparently justify to yourself. 

 

I disagree.

If however you wish to regard all the several vaccines only now coming into their second winter season as "safe" then off you go.

They may well be safe, or there could be horrendous long term side effects.

The point is that nobody knows and your accepting the vaccines is an act of faith; not of science.

That you do also think this way is betrayed by your use of the word "selfishness" to describe my refusing to have any of them as yet.

If you didn't think that way then you would be appealing to science rather than trying to shame me into joining the medical trials because it is in your opinion, to quote Tony Blair before his illegal wars, "the right thing to do".

[red panda]

3 hours ago, 2015 said:

It is rather funny that those who despise the Tories on here and despise Boris Johnson yet still go along with every restriction he puts in place and his 'opposition' support him in doing so. 

I don't believe a word any politician or scientist come out with anymore - they are all corrupted by power, personal agenda's and money in my opinion.

Sorry, but you are beneath contempt for lumping politicians and scientists together.  Scientists have saved billions of lives over many many years with their painstaking and often unrecognised work.  They now abide by a rigorous set of procedures to weed out unreliable findings.  They can't eliminate every single charlatan, but these get found out pretty quickly.

Feel free not to believe them, but they are the best hope the human race has at the moment.

[Eddie Hitler]

1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Nearly half the world's population has been double jabbed (3.3bn) and a total of 7.3bn vaccinations have been administered. 

How many more jabs are required for you to consider that the largest roll-out of vaccinations EVER, is not a trial?

 

Per my earlier post there are two dimensions to trials: numbers and time.

Great on the numbers; can't fault that.

There has however been insufficient time to see what medium or long term side effects may result.

[Rebounder]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Good points all hence my stressing data informs nothing and it's interpretation in subjective.

You can definitely use data effectively, but there would be better ways to use data about mental health provision than comparing suicide rates. 

[WolfOfWestStreet]

1 minute ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Per my earlier post there are two dimensions to trials: numbers and time.

Great on the numbers; can't fault that.

There has however been insufficient time to see what medium or long term side effects may result.

Not waiting around to find out what the long term effects might be. Could well be dead by then.

I'll take anything over drowning in my own lung fluid got to be one of the shittiest ways to go. 

[LondonBristolian]

7 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

I disagree.

If however you wish to regard all the several vaccines only now coming into their second winter season as "safe" then off you go.

They may well be safe, or there could be horrendous long term side effects.

The point is that nobody knows and your accepting the vaccines is an act of faith; not of science.

That you do also think this way is betrayed by your use of the word "selfishness" to describe my refusing to have any of them as yet.

If you didn't think that way then you would be appealing to science rather than trying to shame me into joining the medical trials because it is in your opinion, to quote Tony Blair before his illegal wars, "the right thing to do".

Could there, though? I'm not so sure.

There's a lot of medications that cause side effects but I struggle to think of any medication that can suddenly produce a side effect months after it was taken, especially given the dosage of vaccines isn't that high. 

If you take something we know to be dangerous - arsenic, for example then we know

a) It will kill if you take a lot of it

b) It will cause a lot of damage if you are regularly exposed to it over a prelonged period of time.

But I'm not aware that you can be exposed to it, be fine for ages and then suddenly get ill. And I struggle to think of other substances where that applies. 

I'm quite happy to be corrected by someone who knows their stuff but I just don't see this "it could have a long-term effect we don't know about" idea making sense. The risk with vaccines - as we know - is someone can have an immediate reaction to it, or that it can - in very rare cases - cause blood clots a few days later. But what would the science actually be where it somehow didn't have an effect and then, once it was no longer in your system, suddenly did? It doesn't make sense to me. 

[BrizzleRed]

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

This has happened with influenza every year for centuries.

This idea that Covid rewrites all the rules is simply wrong; it is merely the most recent human virus.

It could equally have been Covid that we had for centuries and then influenza crops up.

Covid is just another virus which a more sensible society would simply learn to live with rather than being the new bogey man to terrify the simple.

You’re overlooking the big difference though. Even the original strain of covid 19 was way more contageous than flu, and each new variant has been more transmissable than the previous one.

That’s why this can’t just be treated like another form of flu.

Edited December 13, 2021 by BrizzleRed

[Eddie Hitler]

5 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

Not waiting around to find out what the long term effects might be. Could well be dead by then.

I'll take anything over drowning in my own lung fluid got to be one of the shittiest ways to go. 

Yep, and entirely your own choice.

I don't try to persuade others not to in RL; my parents have had their boosters as would I at their age.

[Eddie Hitler]

4 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Could there, though? I'm not so sure.

There's a lot of medications that cause side effects but I struggle to think of any medication that can suddenly produce a side effect months after it was taken, especially given the dosage of vaccines isn't that high. 

If you take something we know to be dangerous - arsenic, for example then we know

a) It will kill if you take a lot of it

b) It will cause a lot of damage if you are regularly exposed to it over a prelonged period of time.

But I'm not aware that you can be exposed to it, be fine for ages and then suddenly get ill. And I struggle to think of other substances where that applies. 

I'm quite happy to be corrected by someone who knows their stuff but I just don't see this "it could have a long-term effect we don't know about" idea making sense. The risk with vaccines - as we know - is someone can have an immediate reaction to it, or that it can - in very rare cases - cause blood clots a few days later. But what would the science actually be where it somehow didn't have an effect and then, once it was no longer in your system, suddenly did? It doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Here is where we stray into science and all that I know with regard to Covid is second hand and shallow; I base my objection upon the simple fact that we don't know the likely adverse effects because we can't foretell the future. That's why vaccine trials go on for years.

There is one effect of vaccines known as ADE, and no I don't know what it stands for and it wouldn't be meaningful to me if I did, but what it means is that having a vaccine against one variant of a virus actually makes you more severely infected by the next variant.

It may be this, it may not be, it may be something else, it may be nothing.

Nobody knows and everyone has their fingers crossed.

That isn't good enough for me; though it is good enough for many others.

[GreedyHarry]

30 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Per my earlier post there are two dimensions to trials: numbers and time.

Great on the numbers; can't fault that.

There has however been insufficient time to see what medium or long term side effects may result.

What like side effects twenty years hence??? No thanks. That argument means, that if we agree the volume of vaccine doses administered is large enough, we sit and wait for the last person that has been given it to die ‘naturally’. That could be 50 years or more. And then a card would come along and say, “yes but he could have had side effects if he’d lived just one more day.”

[IAmNick]

4 hours ago, 2015 said:

It is rather funny that those who despise the Tories on here and despise Boris Johnson yet still go along with every restriction he puts in place and his 'opposition' support him in doing so. 

 

Very telling you're so confused that people made a non political judgement of what to do.

I despise Boris, but that's completely separate from whether I agree with the restrictions. That's guided by the data and science.

4 hours ago, Riaz said:

You are a conspiracy theorist if you think for yourself and dont believe EVERYTHING you are told.

But you ARE a conspiracy theorist.

Remember these from a few months ago?

Quote

 In this country, more people have now died from the vaccine, than healthy people have died from covid.

Quote

Deaths from vaccine 1470 and counting.

Quote

In a few years, when birth rates are down, lots of people have suffered from side affects… I will be proven right

Quote

I think birth rates will be down massively tho.

Quote

My suspicion, is that it will make most people infertile.

PLEASE explain to me how that's "thinking for yourself", and not just repeating tired conspiracy theories. You're just blindly believing stuff from another source.

Going against the prevailing opinion is nothing to be proud of, nor any sign that you've thought more.

Edited December 13, 2021 by IAmNick

[Eddie Hitler]

1 minute ago, GreedyHarry said:

What like side effects twenty years hence??? No thanks. That argument means, that if we agree the volume of vaccine doses administered is large enough, we sit and wait for the last person that has been given it to die ‘naturally’. That could be 50 years or more. And then a card would come along and say, “yes but he could have had side effects if he’d lived just one more day.”

 

No, five years will be enough to flush out most of them.

So less than four years now.

For me anyway.

[Baba Yaga]

Judging by the number of people dying in South Africa this has all the makings of being the biggest political overreaction in living memory. The hype from the media is off the scale and the political solutions make little sense but rather they need to be seen to be doing something. Collective responsibility is looking like collective insanity.

[Lrrr]

3 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

Judging by the number of people dying in South Africa this has all the makings of being the biggest political overreaction in living memory. The hype from the media is off the scale and the political solutions make little sense but rather they need to be seen to be doing something. Collective responsibility is looking like collective insanity.

Well in UK what reason could the prime minister want for a distraction, he certainly hasn't been in the news lately to justify such a reaction....

FWIW boosters as a precaution though still well worth it if it keeps hospitalisations down and reduces pressure on the NHS.

[Eddie Hitler]

7 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

Judging by the number of people dying in South Africa this has all the makings of being the biggest political overreaction in living memory. The hype from the media is off the scale and the political solutions make little sense but rather they need to be seen to be doing something. Collective responsibility is looking like collective insanity.

 

It's more difficult this time around because this variant has such a rapid transmission rate that once you have a big problem with too many hospital admissions to cope with then it's too late.

This is the variant where I probably would choose to prefer risking overreacting to risking underreacting.

[Bristol Rob]

12 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

No, five years will be enough to flush out most of them.

So less than four years now.

For me anyway.

Is 5 years a proven scientific measurement, or just a period of time you have plucked out of thin air?

Given that it's known the effectiveness of the vaccine reduces over 12 months, do you not think any remaining particles would be gone long before the 5 years?

[plumb]

So with the MPs vote tomorrow, is anyone aware of any evidence being published to show the benefits the measures will have?  The likely scenarios with and without the measures?  The last evidence I was aware of was the Scottish report showing these measures did not really make a difference, and in Wales they said there is no evidence they make a difference, but make people feel safer.

As Savid Javid previously said "if we're going to pretty much take away people's freedom, you've got to have a really good reason to do it", so surely for such an important vote it cannot just be based on MPs voting based on their own assumptions.

It seems currently like the MPs are part of a jury, and are being encouraged to vote guilty just because the defendant looks a bit rough and crime rates are going up in the area, so better safe than sorry.

Edited December 13, 2021 by bbew

[Bristol Rob]

FOOTBALL RELATED POINT!!!!!!!

Appears there is now a national shortage of LFTs.

So, if you need one to get yourself in to football and you aren't sitting on a stockpile, suggest you consider when you decide to take it.

Obviously, this only applies to those without the Covid passport.

[Eddie Hitler]

6 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Is 5 years a proven scientific measurement, or just a period of time you have plucked out of thin air?

Given that it's known the effectiveness of the vaccine reduces over 12 months, do you not think any remaining particles would be gone long before the 5 years?

 

I read that as being a standard timescale for field trials of new drugs and vaccines in the early days of Covid amid discussions of when vaccines might become properly certified; it's not my origination.

[Riaz]

22 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Very telling you're so confused that people made a non political judgement of what to do.

I despise Boris, but that's completely separate from whether I agree with the restrictions. That's guided by the data and science.

But you ARE a conspiracy theorist.

Remember these from a few months ago?

PLEASE explain to me how that's "thinking for yourself", and not just repeating tired conspiracy theories. You're just blindly believing stuff from another source.

Going against the prevailing opinion is nothing to be proud of, nor any sign that you've thought more.

Two of those quotes were based on information from official sources

The bottom two was a prediction based on what i think is going on....  i was thinking for myself. No other source at all. In fact, i havent seen many people say their theory is that its going to affect birth rates?

[Eddie Hitler]

4 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

FOOTBALL RELATED POINT!!!!!!!

Appears there is now a national shortage of LFTs.

So, if you need one to get yourself in to football and you aren't sitting on a stockpile, suggest you consider when you decide to take it.

Obviously, this only applies to those without the Covid passport.

 

I don't have a stockpile but have some unused, they were ordered a couple if weeks ago and arrived the next day.

[Bristol Rob]

5 minutes ago, bbew said:

So with the MPs vote tomorrow, is anyone aware of any evidence being published to show the benefits the measures will have?  The likely scenarios with and without the measures?  The last evidence I was aware of was the Scottish report showing these measures did not really make a difference, and in Wales they said there is no evidence they make a difference, but make people feel safer.

As Savid Javid previously said "if we're going to pretty much take away people's freedom, you've got to have a really good reason to do it", so surely for such an important vote it cannot just be based on MPs voting based on their own assumptions.

It seems currently like the MPs are part of a jury, and are being encouraged to vote guilty just because the defendant looks a bit rough, and better safe than sorry.

Aside from their being less social interaction as a result of working from home, I'll be surprised if Plan B does much to curb the spread.

My view is that they should have either locked down harder, or not bothered at all. 

Not surprised there is opposition to where we're going.

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

I don't have a stockpile but have some unused, they were ordered a couple if weeks ago and arrived the next day.

We have some as well, but it seems they country has gone mad over them in the last few days.

Probably as we move nearer to passport status.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/13/no-more-home-covid-tests-available-says-nhs-england

 

[Baba Yaga]

Just now, Lrrr said:

Well in UK what reason could the prime minister want for a distraction, he certainly hasn't been in the news lately to justify such a reaction....

FWIW boosters as a precaution though still well worth it if it keeps hospitalisations down and reduces pressure on the NHS.

Possibly but I believe one third of the country have already been boostered and that will include most of the at risk people. At this point I am not sure that the upscaling will do as much as you might think, I would argue that there could be a lot of pointless vaccinations to act as a distraction. 

Just now, Eddie Hitler said:

 

It's more difficult this time around because this variant has such a rapid transmission rate that once you have a big problem with too many hospital admissions to cope with then it's too late.

This is the variant where I probably would choose to prefer risking overreacting to risking underreacting.

I believe they said initially that it would take a couple of weeks to find out how serious omicron is, I think that deadline has now passed and South Africa don't seem to be suffering on the scale that we have seen in previous waves. That has been forgotten and any cautious optimism has been pushed to one side and instead the pushing of fear has been ramped up massively. We will see how it plays out with UK hospital numbers but I think that trying to get as many people scared as possible/ramping up testing will exacerbate the problem, there seems to be a massive disconnect between reality and the media narrative it will be interesting to see how that develops.

[Fordy62]

46 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Very telling you're so confused that people made a non political judgement of what to do.

I despise Boris, but that's completely separate from whether I agree with the restrictions. That's guided by the data and science.

But you ARE a conspiracy theorist.

Remember these from a few months ago?

PLEASE explain to me how that's "thinking for yourself", and not just repeating tired conspiracy theories. You're just blindly believing stuff from another source.

Going against the prevailing opinion is nothing to be proud of, nor any sign that you've thought more.

Well this is awkward!

[BUTOR]

29 minutes ago, Tafkarmlf said:

With several games in doubt, i can see the league being suspended soon enough. 

I'm guessing that shortages of LFTs and people reluctant to 'admit' they've got Covid will see reported and actual numbers flux and cause further issues, sadly. 

Maybe teams will have to go through a postponement or two but beyond that there will be natural immunity for said teams no? A tricky month or two ahead but I highly doubt an entire league suspension. 

[Red-Robbo]

4 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I'm afraid you did as you have here, conflating personal and commercial taxation.

You've actually answered your own question as to why commercial taxation is useless in underpinning the costs of running a health service - there's no way to guarantee income. Turnover is already taxed by VAT so driving away business isn't a good idea, profits targeted by corporation tax, but you can't guarantee how much profit a company makes in any given period. If companies chose to reinvest in the business then whilst shareholders benefit the Chancellor sees nothing.

I didn't conclude increasing commercial taxation was out of the question but the types of money you'd need for the NHS would require legislation beyond these shores and I'm uncertain (other than declaring war) how any UK Government might guarantee delivering that? Government could unilaterally increase tax at risk businesses would decant elsewhere, as they've indicated they would.

As for Northern European healthcare, which countries were you thinking of? In respect of the larger nations UK public funding is on a par if not higher than most (save in those nations a far higher percentage of citizens additionally contribute via the private sector, which is what we in the UK appear reluctant to do.) In places like Scandinavia you first have to factor in population size and demographics, they're very small cf UK, but other than Norway and it's vast oil wealth, public investment isn't so dissimilar, though they, too, pay more than UK via private charging as, slightly more than here, not all 'free at point of access' is actually 'free'.

Remember, the USA has by a country mile the highest per capita PUBLIC funding of healthcare in the world (more than double the UK,) yet folks love to deride what's on offer there. We moan how expensive healthcare is there , the same expense over here most don't wish to pay via direct taxation.

 

I'm not sure you grasped my point which was that it IS possible to increase health spending without clobbering low-income taxpayers as you suggest.  Closing the plethora of tax loopholes from phony non-dom status to phony charitable trusts to dodgy licencing deals etc etc etc would achieve this. See Zucman, Stiglitz, Piketty, Advani et al 

It simply is not true that you cannot tax the wealth of rich individuals or the income of multinational corporations. It requires the will, a will that isn't possessed in this country. And who could be surprised, with a Cabinet full of those getting fat in the tax avoidance business.

All companies seek to minimise their taxation exposure. Mine does. But it's to do with acceptable levels of such and fairness.

We've gone right off the point of this thread, so if you want to continue a discussion on taxation policy I suggest we take it onto the already running thread in the Politics Sub-forum.

One point I do want to make is the US has almost the world's highest public health spend (Japan and some Gulf states are higher) precisely because their system is entirely run-for-profit and overwhelmingly in private hands, with no large purchasing superstructure like the NHS. To run the limited public health programmes that the US government does, Washington has to pay vastly more for doctors, vastly more for equipment, vastly more for hospital bed space and colossally more for medicines.

It is one of the reason's why the US has the highest healthcare spend as a percentage of GDP - 50% higher than Germany, the next highest spend in the OECD.  Yet outcomes in the US are not the best. Colombia, Peru, Turkey, Ecuador, Poland, Greece, Costa Rica, the Maldives and Croatia are among the countries with higher life expectancy than the US (as are we of course) and they also perform badly on other performance indicators.

Speaking as someone who has a close interaction with US health system -and at one point worked within it - I don't think anyone in the UK would ask to see that model implemented, no matter how clean and shiny the hospitals there are. 

 

[Eddie Hitler]

29 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Speaking as someone who has a close interaction with US health system -and at one point worked within it - I don't think anyone in the UK would ask to see that model implemented, no matter how clean and shiny the hospitals there are. 

 

I would say that the NHS is dreadfully run but that epithet should really be reserved for the US health system which is far worse.

Neither is fit for purpose.

[Bob Turnip]

2 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

or there could be horrendous long term side effects

 

The fact that you think this is even possible proves you have no idea how vaccines work.

 

[Eddie Hitler]

32 minutes ago, Bob Turnip said:

 

The fact that you think this is even possible proves you have no idea how vaccines work.

 

 

Took about two minutes; a particular influenza vaccine causing long term increase in diabetes risk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114674/

 

I of course have no deep understanding as to how vaccines work.

Something which I share with you Professor.

 

[BTRFTG]

3 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

I don't know why that's in quotes; we all have brains and the opportunity to use them if we choose to do so.

The basic mechanism of the influenza vaccine has been in place for decades and is very safe; all that changes each year is the selection of the particular four strains to bundle into it.

There are currently multiple competing Covid vaccines; trials are not even sufficiently far advanced to have selected which is the safest.

They are experimental vaccines by any reasonable standards.

I wear a mask in shops, observe lockdown rules and take a LFT when required.

That I don't wish to form part of a medical experiment is a legitimate personal choice; and also one which you can't unmake when further information comes to light.

It highlighted there is no science based logic in your argument.

Ditto your thoughts on flu vaccines, and they aren't simple mix and match. Like corona they isolate and use the latest mutations to inform changes, but all are discrete. Some flu strains are far more deadly than others. That was one of the reasons all the numpties who criticised the Government early doors for having supposed higher death rates when covid first hit neglected that when H3N2 hit in 2018, Germany (amongst others) had significantly higher deaths amongst the vulnerable than the UK as, getting in early when purchasing their annual flu vaccines, they missed out on the additional 'aussie flu' components added to the late UK orders. Many elderly Germans didn't die of Covid as they'd died two years earlier from H3N2.

That you think this an 'experiment' when it's public health protection in extremis says it all.

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I'm not sure you grasped my point which was that it IS possible to increase health spending without clobbering low-income taxpayers as you suggest.  Closing the plethora of tax loopholes from phony non-dom status to phony charitable trusts to dodgy licencing deals etc etc etc would achieve this. See Zucman, Stiglitz, Piketty, Advani et al 

It simply is not true that you cannot tax the wealth of rich individuals or the income of multinational corporations. It requires the will, a will that isn't possessed in this country. And who could be surprised, with a Cabinet full of those getting fat in the tax avoidance business.

All companies seek to minimise their taxation exposure. Mine does. But it's to do with acceptable levels of such and fairness.

We've gone right off the point of this thread, so if you want to continue a discussion on taxation policy I suggest we take it onto the already running thread in the Politics Sub-forum.

One point I do want to make is the US has almost the world's highest public health spend (Japan and some Gulf states are higher) precisely because their system is entirely run-for-profit and overwhelmingly in private hands, with no large purchasing superstructure like the NHS. To run the limited public health programmes that the US government does, Washington has to pay vastly more for doctors, vastly more for equipment, vastly more for hospital bed space and colossally more for medicines.

It is one of the reason's why the US has the highest healthcare spend as a percentage of GDP - 50% higher than Germany, the next highest spend in the OECD.  Yet outcomes in the US are not the best. Colombia, Peru, Turkey, Ecuador, Poland, Greece, Costa Rica, the Maldives and Croatia are among the countries with higher life expectancy than the US (as are we of course) and they also perform badly on other performance indicators.

Speaking as someone who has a close interaction with US health system -and at one point worked within it - I don't think anyone in the UK would ask to see that model implemented, no matter how clean and shiny the hospitals there are. 

 

Again you conflate issues that are not linked. Were Governments able to raise tax in the way you state they would. The fact they don't, despite running catastrophic deficits, confirms as much.

You may state US public healthcare is 'limited', though it's over double what we spend per head here. For sure costs are higher but that delivers higher standards of healthcare. You'll also be aware of the extraordinary levels of private health incentives offered by the US Government, forgoing tax collected such employees and employers may additionally invest in their own health. That's actually quite a smart move we should look at over here.

Similarly, you choose to directly correlate health outcomes with spending, when it's far more complex than that. Were it true we'd follow the Italians and slash health spending given their enviable longevity and frugally funded health system. One of the major reasons US and UK health outcomes appear worse than might be anticipated lies with ethnic composition, but few wish to talk about such matters as genetic predisposition to illness or consanguinity. One can't choose ones genes but differentially impact they sure do.

[Lanterne Rouge]

Important information for attending Bristol City Matches (bristol-sport.co.uk)

[RedLionLad]

10 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Important information for attending Bristol City Matches (bristol-sport.co.uk)

I hope it doesn't rain

[big p]

And just like that, all double jabbed people are now classed as unvaccinated.

Them pesky conspiracy theorist were right again!

Edited December 13, 2021 by big p

[phantom]

I admire someone's optimism that offering 20% off up to 2pm will be an incentive to get people into the ground much earlier 

[Bristol Rob]

 

[The Bard]

E mail from club just arrived encouraging everyone to arrive early and take advantage of 20% off.  In the concourse.  
Nothing about face masks inside at all. So there will probably be a significant number of people carrying Covid inside the concourse on Saturday, but they're jabbed so it's okay.

[RedLionLad]

3 minutes ago, phantom said:

I admire someone's optimism that offering 20% off up to 2pm will be an incentive to get people into the ground much earlier 

Imagine being in the queue for food at 13:55 and not getting served until 14:01

[Strictly Obi]

For me it's all about risk assessment! And scientists and doctors far more qualified than myself have calculated your much more likely to contract and die of covid, than any possible side affect brought on by the vaccine itself. However I respect other people's decision to play Russian roulette and refuse the vaccine. I mean many people know the risk of smoking, yet continue to do so. My only gripe is if hospitals become clogged up with ant-vaxers, and that has a detrimental affect on others. 

[And Its Smith]

12 minutes ago, big p said:

And just like that, all double jabbed people are now classed as unvaccinated.

Them pesky conspiracy theorist were right again!

Eh? So with the covid passports is it triple jabbed or negative LFT?   I thought it was double jabbed 

[lenred]

14 minutes ago, big p said:

And just like that, all double jabbed people are now classed as unvaccinated.

Them pesky conspiracy theorist were right again!

What are you on about now?

[Guest K.Grey]

Any ideas on those not vaccinated by the NHS? Visiting over Christmasfrom overseas? 

[big p]

11 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Eh? So with the covid passports is it triple jabbed or negative LFT?   I thought it was double jabbed 

Soon no longer will double jabbed people be classed as unvaccinated.

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by big p

[PhilC]

Here we go again...

[big p]

Also 12 - 15 year olds will require a Covid Pass to travel....

Conspiracy theorists crackpots  correct again! 

[RedRaw]

No, wrong again. Three jabs or two jabs and a negative LFT

the clubs requirement stipulates two as acceptable..,,

 

“People will be able to demonstrate proof of two vaccine doses via the NHS app. We understand that proof of a negative Lateral Flow Test will also be accepted, but details around this have not yet been released.”

[eardun]

12 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Eh? So with the covid passports is it triple jabbed or negative LFT?   I thought it was double jabbed 

Just double jabbed at the moment. The Govt said today that In due course when everyone has had an opportunity to have a booster, you’ll need to have had the booster as well. So the NHS app will be updated to deal with this at some point next year presumably. But that’s something for the future not now. 

[The Bard]

Just now, RedLionLad said:

Imagine being in the queue for food at 13:55 and not getting served until 14:01

It's going to be a farce.  Come early to stand around indoors eating, drinking and talking.  THat's the best way to beat Covid.

It's creating more queues

[P'head Red]

4 minutes ago, big p said:

 

I wonder what reasonable chance actually means.

[Lanterne Rouge]

Going to be delayed kick offs up and down the country for sure.

[big p]

12 minutes ago, RedRaw said:

No, wrong again. Three jabs or two jabs and a negative LFT

the clubs requirement stipulates two as acceptable..,,

 

“People will be able to demonstrate proof of two vaccine doses via the NHS app. We understand that proof of a negative Lateral Flow Test will also be accepted, but details around this have not yet been released.”

Hasn't the last 2 years taught you anything..

How many times do the crackpot conspiracy theorists need to be correct

 for people to admit something ain't adding up.

Edited December 13, 2021 by big p

[eardun]

3 minutes ago, big p said:

Hasn't the last 2 years taught you anything..

How many times do the crackpot conspiracy theorists need to be correct

 for people to admit something ain't adding up.

Zero correct crackpot conspiracy theorists

+

Zero correct crackpot conspiracy theorists 

=

Zero 

 

[And Its Smith]

5 minutes ago, big p said:

Hasn't the last 2 years taught you anything..

How many times do the crackpot conspiracy theorists need to be correct

 for people to admit something ain't adding up.

You do realise you can watch Bristol city at Ashton gate without having had a vaccine don’t you ?  It seems like you don’t 

[TonyTonyTony]

8 minutes ago, big p said:

How many times do the crackpot conspiracy theorists need to be correct

 for people to admit something ain't adding up.

If you can’t add up perhaps you should have listened more at school

[big p]

6 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

If you can’t add up perhaps you should have listened more at school

Ha Ha Ha you got me there PhonyPhonyPhony.

[Lew-T]

Mods - Can we move this thread?

 

Or bin it.

[big p]

22 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

You do realise you can watch Bristol city at Ashton gate without having had a vaccine don’t you ?  It seems like you don’t 

What about travel? What about the fact 12 -15 year olds will need a vaccine passport to travel. I'm sure this is OK with you aswell.

Edited December 13, 2021 by big p

[James54De]

3 minutes ago, big p said:

What about travel? What about the fact 12 -15 year olds will need to travel. I'm sure this is OK with you aswell.

Got nothing to do with the UK government, that. 

[RedRaw]

5 minutes ago, big p said:

Hasn't the last 2 years taught you anything..

How many times do the crackpot conspiracy theorists need to be correct

 for people to admit something ain't adding up.

What actual ‘theory’ are you purporting to be correct on because as I see it, we have been in unprecedented territory for the last 2 years which no government has been able to control no matter what policies they put in place.
 

We all knew the vaccines were never going to give you 100% protection but would reduce the risk of getting seriously ill and or passing it on. As soon variants come along, we knew boosters/new vaccines may be needed to counter it, the same as flu.

So yes, things change and what governments may have said previously may have to change as things develop. All this time, you have retained your democratic right not to get vaccinated….your choice

[Galley is our king]

12 minutes ago, Lew-T said:

Mods - Can we move this thread?

 

Or bin it.

Preferably bin it!