Current Affairs

[Kendhni]

They're not!!! Considering the slow vaccination rate in the EU countries the vaccines are no use in the bottles are they?

I think my humour went right over your head.

[Kendhni]

Ken, you're blown, everyone knows now that you talk a load of bull.

The good old ad hominem - the argument of an ignoramous with nothing worth saying

Thanks Ken to be called an ignoramus by you, a self opinionated remainer is indeed a true accolade.

QED

[Kendhni]

What makes you think the EU is not getting jabs into peoples arms?

This link illustrates the point (up to 75% more than most EU countries )

https://www.statista.com/statistics/119 ... y-country/

Just coming back to this one (and ignoring the fact that your maths is wrong) many countries in the EU and elsewhere in the world have taken a different approach to the UK in relation to vaccinations. Just before Christmas the governments stated strategy was to roll out the vaccine by ensuring people got both shots within the recommended timescales ... at the same time Tony Blair went public and criticised this while suggesting that the government should spread the vaccine around more by making sure more people got at least one shot rather than hoarding for 2 shots (something that several posters on this board heavily criticised).

Early in the year the British government changed strategy and is now attempting to get a single dose to as many people as possible - and they are doing pretty well at that. The interesting bit here is the statement they are using that they will ensure everyone is "offered a jab" by some date (that is such a fuzzy statement that many interpretations could be placed on it and success claimed - it is what is known as setting the bar below ground level).

However other countries are ensuring their citizens get both doses within the manufacturers timescales. The UK is doing less well on this metric compared to other countries.

I am glad to see both strategies being used since it will be interesting to see if there is any variation in the efficacy.

[Mervyn and Trish]

You really do scrape the barrel in your efforts to run down the UK. Just about every media commentator praises the UK on vaccination success and puts us in the top countries across the world. You search for a measure - any measure - to try to prove we're worse.

[Manoverboard]

It really is sad that some cannot make their points without being rude and offensive ... just saying.

[Kendhni]

It really is sad that some cannot make their points without being rude and offensive ... just saying.

It is disgraceful the amount of snide underhand comments I have to take from a couple of rude and offensive posters.

[Kendhni]

You really do scrape the barrel in your efforts to run down the UK. Just about every media commentator praises the UK on vaccination success and puts us in the top countries across the world. You search for a measure - any measure - to try to prove we're worse.

Are you responding to my post? If so I would suggest you try re-reading with your 'comprehension' filter turned on ... there is absolutely nothing in my post that criticises the UK.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel are those that rely on strawmen and ad hominems.

[Manoverboard]

It really is sad that some cannot make their points without being rude and offensive ... just saying.

It is disgraceful the amount of snide underhand comments I have to take from a couple of rude and offensive posters.

It worries me that you may even believe that statement, but if you do you are in a minority of one.

Would wish to advise that in response to Report(s) raised further offensive comments, by any Member, within this Topic may will be culled.

Regards MobyModPlod

[towny44]

What makes you think the EU is not getting jabs into peoples arms?

This link illustrates the point (up to 75% more than most EU countries )

https://www.statista.com/statistics/119 ... y-country/

Just coming back to this one (and ignoring the fact that your maths is wrong) many countries in the EU and elsewhere in the world have taken a different approach to the UK in relation to vaccinations. Just before Christmas the governments stated strategy was to roll out the vaccine by ensuring people got both shots within the recommended timescales ... at the same time Tony Blair went public and criticised this while suggesting that the government should spread the vaccine around more by making sure more people got at least one shot rather than hoarding for 2 shots (something that several posters on this board heavily criticised).

Early in the year the British government changed strategy and is now attempting to get a single dose to as many people as possible - and they are doing pretty well at that. The interesting bit here is the statement they are using that they will ensure everyone is "offered a jab" by some date (that is such a fuzzy statement that many interpretations could be placed on it and success claimed - it is what is known as setting the bar below ground level).

However other countries are ensuring their citizens get both doses within the manufacturers timescales. The UK is doing less well on this metric compared to other countries.

I am glad to see both strategies being used since it will be interesting to see if there is any variation in the efficacy.

Yet further proof of your content edited ramblings to belittle the UK and polish the EU's halo.
If you examine the data you will find that the UK has by far the highest vaccine uptake in the world, and I imagine the reason we are saying "offered" the vaccine is because the govt don't want to make it mandatory, although I hope that demand for vaccine passports for travel and possibly to hold onto your job, may bring this about.

[oldbluefox]

Just coming back to this one (and ignoring the fact that your maths is wrong) many countries in the EU and elsewhere in the world have taken a different approach to the UK in relation to vaccinations.

It's vey noble of you to ignore my maths and on what basis do you make that judgement? I now confess I picked that figure out of thin air and used your precursor "up to" giving it a range of 1 to 75. Without the context of my calculation it is impossible for you to make that judgement only that you consider anything you say is always superior to that of anybody else.

Just coming back to this one (and ignoring the fact that your maths is wrong) many countries in the EU and elsewhere in the world have taken a different approach to the UK in relation to vaccinations.

I agree. The EU were a long way behind the UK because it took them such a long time for the vaccines to be ratified. It appears the UK have got it right to vaccinate as many as can and will have the vaccine and follow on with the second dose within three months. Everything else is an irrelevance.

[david63]

It appears the UK have got it right to vaccinate as many as can and will have the vaccine and follow on with the second dose within three months.

Hasn't Germany now decided to go down this route? If it is not Germany then it is one of the other EU countries.

[oldbluefox]

I haven't seen any data or reports of the manner in which the vaccine is being administered but the Germans are not happy with the vaccine rollout.

https://www.dw.com/en/germans-unhappy-w ... a-56756339

"The United Kingdom has given at least one jab to 31% of its population, while Germany has so far at least partially vaccinated 7.63% of its population, according to figures compiled by Our World In Data.
That is marginally above the EU average of 7.60 people for every 100."

[david63]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56275342

[Kendhni]

Just coming back to this one (and ignoring the fact that your maths is wrong) many countries in the EU and elsewhere in the world have taken a different approach to the UK in relation to vaccinations.

It's vey noble of you to ignore my maths and on what basis do you make that judgement? I now confess I picked that figure out of thin air and used your precursor "up to" giving it a range of 1 to 75. Without the context of my calculation it is impossible for you to make that judgement only that you consider anything you say is always superior to that of anybody else.

You were underselling based on the way you phrased it the UK is up to 10 times better (which is about 1000%).
That is the problem I am finding with this site. Some are so focussed on the 'who' rather than the 'what' meaning they turn their comprehension filter off, desperately trying to find something to criticise.

Just coming back to this one (and ignoring the fact that your maths is wrong) many countries in the EU and elsewhere in the world have taken a different approach to the UK in relation to vaccinations.

I agree. The EU were a long way behind the UK because it took them such a long time for the vaccines to be ratified. It appears the UK have got it right to vaccinate as many as can and will have the vaccine and follow on with the second dose within three months. Everything else is an irrelevance.

At the time I thought Blair made a very good point and agreed with him - getting the vaccine to more people was a better approach, and I am glad to see the UK government changed their strategy. But I think it is too early to call if one technique is better than the other.

[Kendhni]

It appears the UK have got it right to vaccinate as many as can and will have the vaccine and follow on with the second dose within three months.

Hasn't Germany now decided to go down this route? If it is not Germany then it is one of the other EU countries.

I believe several countries are changing strategy. But not necessarily for the right reasons. We got sent an internal document that (focussing purely on this point) said that there was concern that there was "too much emphasis being put on numbers". The underlying thought was that we don't really know enough yet so, as I said "I am glad to see both strategies being used since it will be interesting to see if there is any variation in the efficacy." - if the switch between strategies is being done due to scientific evidence then that is good, if it is just playing a numbers game - then that y prove to be an issue.

[towny44]

Ken, your comments keep wobbling about, have the UK done more vaccinations, or because the EU is giving each person 2 jabs are they ahead?
As regards why we are allowing 10/12 weeks between jabs, this has always been SAGE policy to maximise the number of first doses and slow down the infection rate and hospitalizations and resultant deaths. They gambled that the limited initial info that suggested the antibody levels continued increasing well after 3 weeks was accurate and that this was a gamble worth taking, and so it has proved.

[Kendhni]

Ken, your comments keep wobbling about, have the UK done more vaccinations, or because the EU is giving each person 2 jabs are they ahead?
As regards why we are allowing 10/12 weeks between jabs, this has always been SAGE policy to maximise the number of first doses and slow down the infection rate and hospitalizations and resultant deaths. They gambled that the limited initial info that suggested the antibody levels continued increasing well after 3 weeks was accurate and that this was a gamble worth taking, and so it has proved.

You have totally missed the point. The governments original strategy (irrespective of SAGE advice) was to follow the manufacturer guidelines and give people the doses as per those guidelines. On 23rd of Dec Blair put out a statement saying this was wrong and they should be maximising the first dose (with several posters on this and other boards very critical of his comments) - early in the new year the government strategy changed. At the end of February the government claimed that Blair stole the idea from them - but then as Johnson once said 'it's not who said what, it is who made what public first'.

At no point have I criticised this policy (I have no idea what people are reading that makes them think otherwise). In fact when you read to the end of my post you will see I clearly say "I am glad to see both strategies being used since it will be interesting to see if there is any variation in the efficacy."

[towny44]

Ken, your comments keep wobbling about, have the UK done more vaccinations, or because the EU is giving each person 2 jabs are they ahead?
As regards why we are allowing 10/12 weeks between jabs, this has always been SAGE policy to maximise the number of first doses and slow down the infection rate and hospitalizations and resultant deaths. They gambled that the limited initial info that suggested the antibody levels continued increasing well after 3 weeks was accurate and that this was a gamble worth taking, and so it has proved.

You have totally missed the point. The governments original strategy (irrespective of SAGE advice) was to follow the manufacturer guidelines and give people the doses as per those guidelines. On 23rd of Dec Blair put out a statement saying this was wrong and they should be maximising the first dose (with several posters on this and other boards very critical of his comments) - early in the new year the government strategy changed. At the end of February the government claimed that Blair stole the idea from them - but then as Johnson once said 'it's not who said what, it is who made what public first'.

At no point have I criticised this policy (I have no idea what people are reading that makes them think otherwise). In fact when you read to the end of my post you will see I clearly say "I am glad to see both strategies being used since it will be interesting to see if there is any variation in the efficacy."

There was a recent report that Blair had actually lifted the idea from his inclusion in some discussions with the dept of health, and he jumped the gun and went public with their idea before all the evidence had been analysed. Which is rather typical of the man.

[Kendhni]

Ken, your comments keep wobbling about, have the UK done more vaccinations, or because the EU is giving each person 2 jabs are they ahead?
As regards why we are allowing 10/12 weeks between jabs, this has always been SAGE policy to maximise the number of first doses and slow down the infection rate and hospitalizations and resultant deaths. They gambled that the limited initial info that suggested the antibody levels continued increasing well after 3 weeks was accurate and that this was a gamble worth taking, and so it has proved.

You have totally missed the point. The governments original strategy (irrespective of SAGE advice) was to follow the manufacturer guidelines and give people the doses as per those guidelines. On 23rd of Dec Blair put out a statement saying this was wrong and they should be maximising the first dose (with several posters on this and other boards very critical of his comments) - early in the new year the government strategy changed. At the end of February the government claimed that Blair stole the idea from them - but then as Johnson once said 'it's not who said what, it is who made what public first'.

At no point have I criticised this policy (I have no idea what people are reading that makes them think otherwise). In fact when you read to the end of my post you will see I clearly say "I am glad to see both strategies being used since it will be interesting to see if there is any variation in the efficacy."

There was a recent report that Blair had actually lifted the idea from his inclusion in some discussions with the dept of health, and he jumped the gun and went public with their idea before all the evidence had been analysed. Which is rather typical of the man.

I agree, exactly what I posted as well ... I guess we will never really know the sequence of events but, as I pointed out, "it's not who said what, it is who made what public first" (Johnson).

[towny44]

You have totally missed the point. The governments original strategy (irrespective of SAGE advice) was to follow the manufacturer guidelines and give people the doses as per those guidelines. On 23rd of Dec Blair put out a statement saying this was wrong and they should be maximising the first dose (with several posters on this and other boards very critical of his comments) - early in the new year the government strategy changed. At the end of February the government claimed that Blair stole the idea from them - but then as Johnson once said 'it's not who said what, it is who made what public first'.

At no point have I criticised this policy (I have no idea what people are reading that makes them think otherwise). In fact when you read to the end of my post you will see I clearly say "I am glad to see both strategies being used since it will be interesting to see if there is any variation in the efficacy."

There was a recent report that Blair had actually lifted the idea from his inclusion in some discussions with the dept of health, and he jumped the gun and went public with their idea before all the evidence had been analysed. Which is rather typical of the man.

I agree, exactly what I posted as well ... I guess we will never really know the sequence of events but, as I pointed out, "it's not who said what, it is who made what public first" (Johnson).

I must learn to read all the post and not jump in too soon, but long posts do create problems for us dimmer and slower readers.

[Stephen]

Wrong I know, but it did make me smile

Covid: Helicopter flew from Salford to Preston for sandwich https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-56278463

[david63]

This one was better - https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-n ... al-5069035

Not as if they can sell them down at the pub!

[Stephen]

This one was better - https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-n ... al-5069035

Not as if they can sell them down at the pub!

What they thought they were going to do with them I don’t know.

[Manoverboard]

Have you seen the price of sandwiches in Salford Quays ?

Preston by comparison is a give-a-way rather than a take-a-way

[david63]

Preston by comparison is a give-a-way rather than a take-a-way

Not when you add on the delivery cost