Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

A tale of politics

Once upon a very recent time of politics, one, Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the Labour party and John McDonnell was his chancellor and they announced these policies;

Nationalisation of rail.

Major investment to grow the economy.

Corporation tax up from 19% to 26%.

These were instantly condemned by the Conservatve government and the Tory press as Marxist and disastrous and Corbyn and McDonnell called communists.

And it came to pass that Labour lost the general election.

After some kerfuffle in the Conservative ranks, we finally ended up with a Tory government under Boris Johnson, following his direction.

The first major announcement was by the transport secretary he appointed, one Grant Shapps and that was to nationalise Northern Rail. At the same time Shapps confirmed that the rail companies like Eastern that the goverenment was already running would continue that way and ominously warned that Northern Rail might not be the last to be taken from the private sector.

Soon afterwards in Autumn 2019, Johnson's Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid announced a major program of investment to grow the economy.

Now in 2021 the latest Chancellor, Richi Sunak announces a further program of investment to grow the economy and also announced that corporation tax is to rise from 19% to 25%.

I wonder if they will ever realise how much they have vindicated Jeremy Corbyn's policies by their touching faith in them.

And will also reflect on the fact that if they were right originally, Boris Johnson, Grant Shapps, Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak must also be Marxist communists.
.

 

[Zlatan]

A tale of politics

Once upon a very recent time of politics, one, Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the Labour party and John McDonnell was his chancellor and they announced these policies;

Nationalisation of rail.

Major investment to grow the economy.

Corporation tax up from 19% to 26%.

These were instantly condemned by the Conservatve government and the Tory press as Marxist and disastrous and Corbyn and McDonnell called communists.

And it came to pass that Labour lost the general election.

After some kerfuffle in the Conservative ranks, we finally ended up with a Tory government under Boris Johnson, following his direction.

The first major announcement was by the transport secretary he appointed, one Grant Shapps and that was to nationalise Northern Rail. At the same time Shapps confirmed that the rail companies like Eastern that the goverenment was already running would continue that way and ominously warned that Northern Rail might not be the last to be taken from the private sector.

Soon afterwards in Autumn 2019, Johnson's Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid announced a major program of investment to grow the economy.

Now in 2021 the latest Chancellor, Richi Sunak announces a further program of investment to grow the economy and also announced that corporation tax is to rise from 19% to 25%.

I wonder if they will ever realise how much they have vindicated Jeremy Corbyn's policies by their touching faith in them.

And will also reflect on the fact that if they were right originally, Boris Johnson, Grant Shapps, Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak must also be Marxist communists.
.

Problem wasn't always his policies Flecc. (apart from his defence policy, which was an utter shambles... Including funding for Trident replacement but with a vow to never ever use it)
It was him, his inability to make a decision, his past associations and his choice of colleagues.. And his silly hat along with his telling whole world he lived in a council house, grew food on an allotment but came from wealthy background. Its just too contradictory.
But, I see your point... Yet I totally agree with JHC... I, d vote Tory again over Labour any day of week.
I, m also fairly convinced Unite and its leader are as corrupt as any politician anywhere in house and probably then some. (Liverpool Mayor?)
McCluskey is straight???(criminality wise, not sexual)
And do you truly believe Corbyn could have coped past 12 months. He was in a state many times at election time. Could he have headed our Vaccine strategy. He, d have gone hook line and sinker into EU scheme, and got walked all over.???
All water under the bridge now.
We, ve left, got Tories and covid. A new world. Not so brave tho.

 

[Danidl]

Problem wasn't always his policies Flecc. (apart from his defence policy, which was an utter shambles... Including funding for Trident replacement but with a vow to never ever use it)
It was him, his inability to make a decision, his past associations and his choice of colleagues.. And his silly hat along with his telling whole world he lived in a council house, grew food on an allotment but came from wealthy background. Its just too contradictory.
But, I see your point... Yet I totally agree with JHC... I, d vote Tory again over Labour any day of week.
I, m also fairly convinced Unite and its leader are as corrupt as any politician anywhere in house and probably then some. (Liverpool Mayor?)
McCluskey is straight???(criminality wise, not sexual)
And do you truly believe Corbyn could have coped past 12 months. He was in a state many times at election time. Could he have headed our Vaccine strategy. He, d have gone hook line and sinker into EU scheme, and got walked all over.???
All water under the bridge now.
We, ve left, got Tories and covid. A new world. Not so brave tho.

Maybe if Corbyn had bought more into EU thinking and schemes, he would have enforced rational lockdown measures and the UK would not have experienced the death spiral in December., And it could have afforded the slower less risky EU strategy. We will never know.

 

[flecc]

It was him, his inability to make a decision, his past associations and his choice of colleagues.. And his silly hat
And do you truly believe Corbyn could have coped past 12 months.

Now compare that to Boris Johnson, also an indecisive shambles relying on dodgy advisers like Dominic Cummings. His past associations with criminals and choice of colleagues both exposed by his London mayorality, and his silly clothes and hair. Plus his habitual lying which Corbyn wasn't guilty of.

Corbyn, like Attlee long ago and like Johnson now, wouldn't have done anything much, he'd have left it to those he appointed and already showed that by his reliance on the capable John McDonnell.

You see, just like the politically shared policies I pointed out, a Corbyn government would largely have been same again as we have now. A small number of competent ministers and no shortage of chumps like Chris "Failing" Grayling.
.

 

[oyster]

EU not happy...

European Commission slams Britain for 'breaching international law AGAIN' by 'violating Brexit deal' to extend Irish border grace period until October

• Commission vice president Maros Sefcovic slammed Britain for violating law
• Government unilaterally decided to extend the Irish Sea border grace period
• The Irish Government also branded the intervention 'deeply unhelpful'

By Jack Newman For Mailonline

Published: 20:54, 3 March 2021 | Updated: 20:58, 3 March 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9322751/EU-slams-Britain-breaching-international-law-extending-Irish-border-grace-period.html

 

[Jesus H Christ]

The only flaw in your otherwise cogent argument, is that the policy was decided on with zero evidence.... Not even a hunch, that it would work. The UK stopped giving the second jab of Pfizer Before the AZ was even a a week released. The evidence starting to emerge showing enhanced protection from the AZ by delaying the second jab is just happening now,and is highly preliminary. . So there is no possibility that Witty et al could know without clairvoyance in January . I have no information on whether the Pfizer exhibits the same behaviour.

They will have considered and taken into account many years of experience with other vaccines. They will know how people respond to vaccines and how the length of the interval between doses causes the immune system to react.

You make it sound like the decision to extend the vaccination interval was completely blind guess. A total finger in the air type of act. It most certainly wasn’t. It will have been a calculated decision with the theoretical odds in favour of extending the interval. But I agree, nothing will be known for certain until real world experience is known.

I have always thought the decision to go for slightly lower protection for twice as many people was the right one. I give the government no credit for that. It’s a decision taken by medical professionals. I know many on here can’t crowbar their political obsessions away from the medical advice. It’s childish beyond comprehension.

 

[flecc]

I know many on here can’t crowbar their political obsessions away from the medical advice. It’s childish beyond comprehension.

Some of us think far more deeply than you give credit for, so you throw out random insults.

I believe the medical advice behind the delaying decision is not for the benefit of the population but solely to protect the NHS. From that point of view it's a very good decision, albeit not an easy one to sell to the public at large.

What many are missing is that full protection is being taken from a more vulnerable age band to be given to a less vulnerable age band, the two not being the same thing at all.

Far more of the older band will die with inadequate protection than the younger band who are more resistant, more likely to suffer less complications and more likely to recover. And the difference as the younger bands are reached becomes even more marked.

But of course these suit the NHS since the oldest and more vulnerable infected die sooner and don't clog the NHS and their intensive care units for long. The younger groups who are far more able to survive infection with treatment do that with nursing and much longer stays and intensive care time. So it's much better for the NHS to get the younger bands protected to a fair degree to avoid those long stays in intensive care.

To sell this to the public they've switched the story from the inconveniently low protection from infection of one dose to the conveniently higher protection from hospitalisation, albeit on evidence so sparce that it's suspect.

You see, nothing to do with politics.
.

 

[Woosh]

You make it sound like the decision to extend the vaccination interval was completely blind guess.

Our government paid some academics to study the likely effect of delaying the second jab before going for it.
Their conclusions are very clear. There is a definitive short term advantage.
If you are interested, just google up their study.

 

[Danidl]

They will have considered and taken into account many years of experience with other vaccines. They will know how people respond to vaccines and how the length of the interval between doses causes the immune system to react.

You make it sound like the decision to extend the vaccination interval was completely blind guess. A total finger in the air type of act. It most certainly wasn’t. It will have been a calculated decision with the theoretical odds in favour of extending the interval. But I agree, nothing will be known for certain until real world experience is known.

I have always thought the decision to go for slightly lower protection for twice as many people was the right one. I give the government no credit for that. It’s a decision taken by medical professionals. I know many on here can’t crowbar their political obsessions away from the medical advice. It’s childish beyond comprehension.

Again .. not exactly true. They might make an educated guess with the AZ , that it would create responses equivalent to other vaccines, since it was if similar structure. But they had zero experience with an mRNA type. And yes I am suggesting that it was a forlorn hope excercise and against all known clinical judgement. To assume that the expertise in the UKs civil service was / is above that in the rest of the world is hubris. I believe that the decision was taken to reduce the immediate run on critical care beds as the infection rates were increasing exponentially. It was a short term tactic, in the hope that it wouldn't backfire.

 

[oldgroaner]

Exposed to what? Each day that passes, it’s looking more and more likely that a single vaccination is very effective. After the delayed second dose, we don’t know if immunity will be worse, the same or better than if it had been administered after three weeks. The medical experts who have extrapolated the figures are of the opinion that immunity might be improved by delaying the second dose.


It’s a case of choosing whether to accept the advice from our leading medical experts, or whether to believe what you’ve read in Communism for Dummies.

Still falling for the same old propaganda our leading medical experts are simply gambling ,not bothering with the fact that they are ditching a higher level of additional protection, but then you've been reading "Fascism for Dummies again, haven't you?"
Second best will do very nicely if you do that.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

Some of us think far more deeply than you give credit for, so you throw out random insults.

I believe the medical advice behind the delaying decision is not for the benefit of the population but solely to protect the NHS. From that point of view it's a very good decision, albeit not an easy one to sell to the public at large.

What many are missing is that full protection is being taken from a more vulnerable age band to be given to a less vulnerable age band, the two not being the same thing at all.

Far more of the older band will die with inadequate protection than the younger band who are more resistant, more likely to suffer less complications and more likely to recover. And the difference as the younger bands are reached becomes even more marked.

But of course these suit the NHS since the oldest and more vulnerable infected die sooner and don't clog the NHS and their intensive care units for long. The younger groups who are far more able to survive infection with treatment do that with nursing and much longer stays and intensive care time. So it's much better for the NHS to get the younger bands protected to a fair degree to avoid those long stays in intensive care.

To sell this to the public they've switched the story from the inconveniently low protection from infection of one dose to the conveniently higher protection from hospitalisation, albeit on evidence so sparce that it's suspect.

You see, nothing to do with politics.
.

Agreed regarding politics in your latest post, but you don’t need to look far to see some from others who are totally unable to separate the medical strategy from an imaginary Boris Johnson plot.

In the current circumstances, I‘m still of the opinion that the medical experts have got it right. They are advising the vulnerable with one dose of vaccine to buckle down and stick to shielding for a few more days. The second shots will be coming soon.

It could be worse. If they lived in France they would be waiting for their first vaccination shot!

 

[Jesus H Christ]

Still falling for the same old propaganda our leading medical experts are simply gambling ,not bothering with the fact that they are ditching a higher level of additional protection, but then you've been reading "Fascism for Dummies again, haven't you?"
Second best will do very nicely if you do that.

You can’t understand that protection has been diluted by around 10% to give 100% more people a temporarily slightly lower level of protection can you?

As I’ve posted above, think yourself lucky that you aren’t living in France. It’s very likely you would not have even had your first vaccination yet, leaving you totally unprotected. Or even Germany when only at this late stage they have eventually decided to use the AZ vaccine in your age group!

We are following medical advice from leading medical experts and we are fortunate that for once this clown-cart government is listening to them.

You are so mind obsessed with Boris Johnson that every single thing has to be pulled down, dismantled and destroyed. You then forensically scour the debris for links to the Tory party, and when you find none, you fabricate them. You are unwell, your behaviour is an illness.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

Again .. not exactly true. They might make an educated guess with the AZ , that it would create responses equivalent to other vaccines, since it was if similar structure. But they had zero experience with an mRNA type. And yes I am suggesting that it was a forlorn hope excercise and against all known clinical judgement. To assume that the expertise in the UKs civil service was / is above that in the rest of the world is hubris. I believe that the decision was taken to reduce the immediate run on critical care beds as the infection rates were increasing exponentially. It was a short term tactic, in the hope that it wouldn't backfire.

You are still exaggerating the level of unknowns associated with this decision. I disagree with you. The expertise in the U.K. and in particular at Oxford University is amongst the best on the planet.

 

[oyster]

You are still exaggerating the level of unknowns associated with this decision. I disagree with you. The expertise in the U.K. and in particular at Oxford University is amongst the best on the planet.

Some of us can see that however brilliant individuals are, however dedicated, unknowns, invalid assumptions, etc., can get through.

In the area I know best, every Patient Information Leaflet has incorrect advice. For around ten years the advice on when to take the medicine has simply been unvalidated or wrong. A few minor changes have got through but it is still misleading.

Once an idea has taken root, it takes a lot to overturn it.

 

[oldgroaner]

They will have considered and taken into account many years of experience with other vaccines. They will know how people respond to vaccines and how the length of the interval between doses causes the immune system to react.

You make it sound like the decision to extend the vaccination interval was completely blind guess. A total finger in the air type of act. It most certainly wasn’t. It will have been a calculated decision with the theoretical odds in favour of extending the interval. But I agree, nothing will be known for certain until real world experience is known.

I have always thought the decision to go for slightly lower protection for twice as many people was the right one. I give the government no credit for that. It’s a decision taken by medical professionals. I know many on here can’t crowbar their political obsessions away from the medical advice. It’s childish beyond comprehension.

Tossing a coin about sums it up especially when the coin falls the way up it was intended to, and is double headed

This sentence is correct
" I know many on here can’t crowbar their political obsessions away from the medical advice. It’s childish beyond comprehension."
So why do you keep doing it?
Pfizer specified 4 weeks between doses and the designed the vaccine and tested it , so you as a Tory Fan boy think Tory controlled locals who have never designed a vaccine in their lives, nor invested £4 Billions in research on it know better?
You need your head looking at!

 

[oyster]

Alternatives to the tories?

Westminster warned as poll shows record backing for Welsh independence
Survey for ITV News Tonight reported ‘dramatic uplift’ with 40% backing independence and most support amongst young people
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/04/westminster-warned-as-poll-shows-record-backing-for-welsh-independence

PC have come across very well in the past few years.

 

[oldgroaner]

You are still exaggerating the level of unknowns associated with this decision. I disagree with you. The expertise in the U.K. and in particular at Oxford University is amongst the best on the planet.

Hence we are doing a magnificent job in failing to control the pandemic with stupid ideas eh?
There was excellent advice from the only people who do have any grasp of how good the vaccine is.
So some pillocks here decided they know better because the government is up the creek without a paddle and they need to look good to the public so they fell in line as they usually do.
For instance how the hell did either "Eat out to help out"
or "Christmas" ever get past these so called experts of yours?
They behaved like the wise monkeys, didn't they?

 

[oldgroaner]

You can’t understand that protection has been diluted by around 10% to give 100% more people a temporarily slightly lower level of protection can you?

As I’ve posted above, think yourself lucky that you aren’t living in France. It’s very likely you would not have even had your first vaccination yet, leaving you totally unprotected. Or even Germany when only at this late stage they have eventually decided to use the AZ vaccine in your age group!

We are following medical advice from leading medical experts and we are fortunate that for once this clown-cart government is listening to them.

You are so mind obsessed with Boris Johnson that every single thing has to be pulled down, dismantled and destroyed. You then forensically scour the debris for links to the Tory party, and when you find none, you fabricate them. You are unwell, your behaviour is an illness.

You are actually describing your own condition, I simply look at available information, cut away the propaganda and judge what is left.
The notion of not finding links to the Tory party when things go belly up, could only exist in the mind of a Tory Fanboy
It's Fantasy

 

[flecc]

In the current circumstances, I‘m still of the opinion that the medical experts have got it right. They are advising the vulnerable with one dose of vaccine to buckle down and stick to shielding for a few more days. The second shots will be coming soon.

There is no single right in the application of the vaccines, it depends on the objective and in consequence the question asked.

Decades of Tory government and their ten years of austerity had left the NHS in a parlous state with the lowest number of hospital beds per 100,000 of the population than any other advanced country. Hence the Nightingale hospitals, but they proved useless since we had no staff for them after Brexit caused our EU recruiting to collapse.

So our prime objective was to save the NHS from collapse and that guided the question, how do we do that. The answer was the two jab system as I've shown, but putting saving the health service before saving patients is an odd priority.

Another valid objective is putting saving patients lives first, which prompts that different question for which the answer is different, getting the two jabs into the highest risk of death first at the best intervals.

A third valid objective is to use the vaccines to minimise the infections in the first place, and that's done by jabbing the youngest first from 18 up as some Oriental countries are doing and which our experts say has considerable merit.

You see, no right answer, it's horses for course once more, solely dependent on the circumstances. I believe the second of putting the patients first was the better way for us, but either way it's a gamble no matter who the experts are. No-one knows yet.
.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

You are actually describing your own condition, I simply look at available information, cut away the propaganda and judge what is left.
The notion of not finding links to the Tory party when things go belly up, could only exist in the mind of a Tory Fanboy
It's Fantasy

There it is, right there. You can’t separate a discussion regarding a medical decision from Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party. I regularly criticise him / them and the post you were replying to levelled no praise at either Johnson or the Tories.

Seriously, you have a mental condition. I have experience in this field from my work and you are definitely displaying overt symptoms of obsessive and fixated behaviour. The disparity between what is actually happening outside your head in the real world, and what is taking place inside it is getting more pronounced.

Your sense of reasoning is also seriously impaired. For example, you have lost the ability to accept that a person can get something horrible wrong, but that same person may, on rare occasions, get something right. That might be through either luck or surprising judgment, but it does happen.

I don’t mean this as an insult, but you are definitely displaying worrying obsessive behaviour, seek help.