The Eurovision result is because of Brexity Fascism

Blimey:

Oh, and in all this there was some good news. The UK, as a far-right state, got nil points in Eurovision. You can be sure it only made the final because it is a large sponsor. Hungary and Poland, the EU’s most right wing states did not get to the final at all. Do I see that as coincidence? No, I don’t. The fascists will seek to spin this for their own nationalistic gains. But the truth is that the callous indifference of these governments towards humanity – including large parts of their own populations – is being noticed and Eurovision has always been deeply political. I suggest sense will prevail in the end. I just cannot predict how long and hard the journey to that endpoint might be.

There’s clearly a tinfoil shortage in Ely.

First, Eurovision. I watched it right through for the first time in many years.

That’s an alternative explanation. But it’s this that is truly barking:

And third, data on the effectiveness against the India variant of the two vaccines now in use in the UK was issued during Eurovision last night. The timing could not have been more cynical. Saturday night is not the moment for such releases. This was news manipulation par excellence. The reason is obvious: the news on Astra Zeneca is pretty grim. It is only 60% effective against the Indian variant whereas Pfizer is 88% so, and most of us have AZ. Sure, it’s better than nothing, but that’s very bad news. My optimism about a third wave being prevented has not increased.

As The Guardian says:

Both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs are highly effective at protecting people from the strain of the Covid-19 virus first found in India, a study by Public Health England (PHE) has found.

The analysis, carried out between 5 April and 16 May, found the Pfizer vaccine was 88% effective against symptomatic disease from the India variant two weeks after a second dose, compared with 93% effectiveness against the Kent strain. For its part, the AstraZeneca jab was 60% effective, compared with 66% against the Kent variant over the same period.

49 thoughts on “The Eurovision result is because of Brexity Fascism”

  1. >No popper-fuelled homosexual conga lines in the Eurovision after-party for you, BIGOTS!

    How will Britain, Poland and Hungary ever recover from this?

  2. Bloke in North Dorset

    If we really were a right wing, fascist state he’d have had a one-way trip over the North Sea some time ago.

  3. What the point of working out if a vaccine is ‘effective against symptomatic disease’? All one needs to know is how effective it is at stopping people dying, plus maybe how effective it is at keeping people out of hospital, as we do need to know what the healthcare demands could be. But somebody lying in bed at home suffering a nasty bout of ‘flu’ but surviving fine is not exactly a problem is it?

    Or are we to turn the entire world upside down to prevent people having a nasty (but completely survivable) bug now?

  4. Britain’s longest friends in Europe are probably IRE, POR and MAL. Greece has a long friendship with Cyprus.
    So what’s a good grown up friend supposed to do: if the song is scheet, do you tell your friend that it’s scheet and award nil points, or try to hid your true feelings and award douze points.

  5. The euroviz ideal is its so bad its good, but the Uk song missed by quite a way they had its so so bad its not even good.

  6. Murphy must be tone-deaf not to realise why the UK entry didn’t get points from either the jury and the public..

    And as far as the efficiency numbers are concerned.. He doesn’t get those either…
    They’re in-vitro tests that track how much of the virus gets “tagged” by specific types of antibodies. And the results of those tests will always be lower than the “reference” antigen they’re set up for, for any mutation, more so for the ones with actual “benefits” to a virus ..

    60% efficiency means that for that given antigen/antibody combo 60% still gets tagged, and the Alarums properly raised as a result. You have to start worrying if the efficiency drops under 30% or so..

    So the vaccines work well enough against the current new varieties to give anyone inoculated “immunity” against them.
    ( provided you don’t go snogging someone who’s actually ill, and stuff…)
    There’s more risk for immunodepressed/unhealthy people, but the cause for that lies not with the vaccine and the resultant tagging of the antigens. The problems there are waaay further back down the line in the second- and third-line immune response.

  7. The voting in the Eurovision Song Contest has always been political. Yes the UK is unpopular in Europe at present but the song was mediocre, as was the singer and the presentation. He is at least right that, had we needed to qualify, the song wouldn’t have made the final.

  8. The standard of the Eurovision Hate the British Song Contest went downhill after Pearl Carr and Teddy Johnson’s, “Sing Little Birdie”.

  9. Then again, winning Eurovision is a bit of a booby prize in itself, since you end up having to host it the following year with all the associated costs thereof. By fielding shite contestants year-in, year-out you avoid that cost Brexit or not.

  10. High time we proved the repellent dog whistler correct about his far right slurs by organising a Kristallnacht in (seriously, going to detailed addresses just isn’t necessary. Calling for Kristallnacht, while we all get the reference to the self-absorbed reaction to Dachau, also isn’t on – Tim)

  11. @John Toons
    Speaking from experience of having been there, UK’s most loyal friends in the rEU are probably the Poles. Dutch still like us. How you’d make the RoE “friends” heaven alone knows. Being anti-British pretty well defines the Paddies. What else of note does?

  12. the fat moron obviously ignores the fact that Italy – this years winner- is the birthplace of fascism.

  13. @Jim

    “What the point of working out if a vaccine is ‘effective against symptomatic disease’?”

    Well there’s obviously *some* point to doing this. For flu, for example, the benefit of vaccination in terms of QALY gain (which is what cost-effectiveness analyses of different potential roll-outs get compared on the back of) there’s a surprisingly even split between the benefit to the large number of people who avoid getting inconveniently but not seriously ill and the small number who avoid getting very sick or dying. For Covid, the QALY gains presumably lean far more towards averting death. (Though I had a conversation with a PHE analyst who told me the balance doesn’t tip that way as much as I thought it would – they were working towards incorporating “long Covid” into their QALY costs.)

    At present, the UK isn’t using Oxford/AZ for first jabs on young people because of the balance of risk of adverse events vs protection from harms of Covid – Pfizer has mostly been used instead. But with new variants that balance of risks can change, e.g. if we saw increasing prevalence of Covid (so you have to weight the harms of Covid more strongly) but AZ offered as good or better protection than Pfizer, that decision might be reversed (at least down to a certain age limit, e.g. they might take the “offer an alternative to AZ first jabs” age down from 40 to 30 years) and protection against symptomatic disease is one element of that risk-benefit calculation.

    There’s also a major problem assessing vaccine protection against death for new variants. People can take a long time to die from Covid. So symptomatic disease can give you an early warning light, or (like we got) a preliminary reassurance. If we only had one vaccine we would presumably just have to keep jabbing away regardless, since even if it didn’t give much protection against a new variant, we’d at least know it gave some protection against other ones doing the rounds. So in terms of how much that information informs decision making, the answer would probably be “not much”. To be fair knowing a bit more about first vs second jab protection in different age groups would help you choose how to prioritise between them and how long to leave the gap, but that’s about it. On the other hand if you have multiple vaccines available, new information about effectiveness (of different kinds and in different types of people) can help tailor the programme re who you jab with what, so this is potentially very valuable.

    One last point – while in terms of public policy you’re right it ought to be hospitalisation / death figures that matter, this doesn’t mean the only stat you care about for vaccines is protection of the vaccinee from hospitalisation / death! Partly for some of the reasons above (e.g. protection vs symptomatic disease still somewhat affects risk-benefit calculations at an individual level) but even if you *only* care about the serious outcomes, direct protection from hospital/death is only part of that. As you jab younger and younger relatively healthy (not on the priority list) people, that direct benefit gets smaller and smaller, since you’re reaching a group less likely to have required hospitalisation anyway. However, there is an *indirect* benefit. More jabs for the young means less deaths among the old. Not all the old are vaccinated and not all the vaccinated are fully protected, so there’s a sizeable benefit in reducing transmission from young to old. But there are difficulties measuring how transmissible people are (particularly young people living alone) and therefore how effective vaccines are at preventing that. Again, a vaccine having poor protection against symptomatic disease would be a warning light that it may not do much against transmission either.

  14. Ireland didn’t make the final either, and we all thought it was because it was another shit song chosen by committee, but now I know the truth, we are a fascist country

  15. The UK, as a far-right state

    How far to the left do you have to be to believe modern UK is far right?

    And why’s he complaining about fascism – creating a fascist state (where he has a top position in government) to control society ‘properly’ is his whole shtick.

    He’s basically Mussolini – he doesn’t think the socialist have enough courage to do what needs to be done.

  16. Grikath
    May 23, 2021 at 11:13 am

    . . .

    60% efficiency means that for that given antigen/antibody combo 60% still gets tagged, and the Alarums properly raised as a result. You have to start worrying if the efficiency drops under 30% or so..

    You just don’t get this. That’s in part because you have never been near, let alone run, a real biomedical business;)

  17. Gunker
    May 23, 2021 at 1:34 pm

    Ireland didn’t make the final either, and we all thought it was because it was another shit song chosen by committee, but now I know the truth, we are a fascist country

    *Obviously* – as your low corporate tax rates makes clear. Everyone knows one of the hallmarks of a fascist state is low taxes and regulation.

  18. When the fat twat is in a hole, his instinct is always to dig harder and faster

    Most epidemiologists would d3scribe the PHE as an unreliable source

    The Guardian published a story clearly not supported by the facts

    I am entirely happy with my position

    Including on Eurovision

  19. Richard Murphy is the definition of media manipulation he’s whining about.

    And he thinks Boris Johnson is right wing? That’s cute.

  20. Diogenes

    Shortly after the rugby legend posted, in a not unexpected appearance from around the U-bend, the turd who will not flush, Pilgrim Slight Return, makes a post.

    Amazingly, however, PSR’s post is not the most asinine. That award surely goes to Dun Groanin, who posts the following:

    “UK has tried very hard to not only not win – but to put it in risible entries for over a decade. By passing the public selection process nationally of previous decades.
    For obvious anti EU brain washing.”

    Murphy’s cocksucking fanboys are utterly deranged.

  21. The AstraZeneca vaccine is a bit rubbish, isn’t it? First the low efficacy against existing variants; then the blood clots; now the low efficacy against new variants. Can’t help but think we should have switched horses to a different vaccine a while ago.

  22. Andrew M, it pays not to believe anything posted by Spud. Other sources show that the AZ vaccine is rather good

    AstraZeneca updated its data analysis of its phase 3 trials in March, showing its vaccine to be 76% effective at reducing the risk of symptomatic disease 15 days or more after receiving the two doses, and 100% against severe disease. The company also said the vaccine was 85% effective in preventing COVID-19 in people over 65

    https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison

    If Ecks reads this, please would he refrain from yet another dull rant

  23. Bravefart, I see we can add “herd immunity” to the list of concepts too hard for Spud and “progressive thinkers” to comprehend

  24. Oh Dear Lord!

    Murphy is now alleging the (evil far right) Government are engaging in eugenics.

    That visit to Dachau seems to have helped to ratchet the Murphy final solution paranoia knob up to 11. Pretty soon a “man from the Ministry” will be painting some sort of sign on the door of (no, really, we don’t need to be putting address up here, stop it – Tim).

    Murphy needs treatment, with strong drugs.

  25. Several bottles were opened, I think. An amazing number of people on the Left take Eurovision seriously and even worse believe the rest of the country does too. Inexplicable.

  26. Time the Eurovision farce was done anyway.

    In the black/white days it was a naïve , earnest load of flummery. Then there was the Wogan era where it provided a fair share of belly laughs. And in fairness did give ABBA a career kick start.

    And in the time since it has become a loathsome leftist circus of freaks and very bad music. Haven’t watched it in 35 years now.

    Time it was gone. Esp if it is awarding points based on adherence to Marxism. Tho’ to me an EU tantrum seems more likely.

  27. @Andrew M/Diogenes

    There’s a timing issue that hinders comparisons. Vaccines can take different times to reach full effect (the AZ jab seems to be slower) but they’re also at different stages of their roll-out (remember AZ second doses were disproportionately hit by the decision to extend the vaccination gap, so as a consequence, we’ve got more data on Pfizer second jabs and a lot of the data on AZ second jabs relates to people who only had it recently).

    If you want some regular reading, the weekly vaccine surveillance report has now been split from the main respiratory illness weekly report series (now known as the “flu and COVID-19 surveillance reports” and previously known as the “nation flu reports” but which always contained a wide range of others bugs). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-surveillance-report

    Looking at the most recent report, there’s “Table 1. Summary of evidence on vaccine effectiveness against different outcomes”. They rate the confidence in the data from low to medium to high (which I’ll write as H, M, L) and you’ll see just how much more data we have for Pfizer-BioNTech versus Oxford-AstraZeneca due to the timing issue. My annotation’s in square brackets.

    Effectiveness against symptomatic disease [absolutely nothing in it for 1st or 2nd jabs, note this is the only thing we have proper data for re AZ 2nd jabs]
    after dose one: Pfizer 55-70% (H), AZ 55-70% (H)
    after dose two: Pfizer 85-90% (M), AZ 85-90% (L)

    Effectiveness against hospitalisation [nothing in it for 1st jabs]
    after dose one: Pfizer 75-85% (H), AZ 75-85% (H)
    after dose two: Pfizer 90-95% (L), AZ no data

    Effectiveness against mortality [nothing in it for 1st jabs]
    after dose one: Pfizer 75-80% (M), AZ 75-80% (M)
    after dose two: Pfizer 95-99% (L), AZ no data

    Effectiveness against mortality [nothing in it for 1st jabs]
    after dose one: Pfizer 75-80% (M), AZ 75-80% (M)
    after dose two: Pfizer 95-99% (L), AZ no data

    Effectiveness against infection [if anything, very slightly favours AZ for 1st jabs, but high uncertainty so don’t read anything into it]
    after dose one: Pfizer 55-70% (M), AZ 60-70% (L)
    after dose two: Pfizer 70-90% (L), AZ no data

    Effectiveness against transmission (symptomatic secondary cases in household of index case) [slightly favours Pfizer for 1st jabs, but even more uncertainty]
    after dose one: Pfizer 45-50% (L), AZ 35-50% (L)
    after dose two: Pfizer no data, AZ no data

    Be interesting to see how things look once more data comes for second jabs, especially for AZ. But I’m not seeing anything there that makes me think AZ was a total waste of time. Particularly if the rate-limiting factor is the volume of jabs the government could get its hands on. Delaying the vaccination scheme to obtain an alternative jab would be a tough thing to justify. (Also @Jim – in this very blurry picture, it was the “symptomatic disease” that gets clarified fastest. Happens sooner, plus bigger numbers so less statistical uncertainty. Yes it’s not the be-all-and-end-all, but you wouldn’t want the eggheads to deliberately avoid calculating it.)

  28. Have a feeling the stat @Andrew read about new variants was presented rather out-of-context in the media. I suspect what you saw came from this preprint?

    https://khub.net/documents/135939561/430986542/Effectiveness+of+COVID-19+vaccines+against+the+B.1.617.2+variant.pdf/204c11a4-e02e-11f2-db19-b3664107atkhc42

    Effectiveness was notably lower after 1 dose of vaccine with B.1.617.2 [“Indian variant”] cases 33.5% (95%CI: 20.6 to 44.3) compared to B.1.1.7 [“Kent variant” until recently dominant in UK] cases 51.1% (95%CI: 47.3 to 54.7) with similar results for both vaccines. With [Pfizer] 2 dose effectiveness reduced from 93.4% (95%CI: 90.4 to 95.5) with B.1.1.7 to 87.9% (95%CI: 78.2 to 93.2) with B.1.617.2. With [Oxford-AZ] 2 dose effectiveness reduced from 66.1% (95% CI: 54.0 to 75.0) with B.1.1.7 to 59.8% (95%CI: 28.9 to 77.3) with B.1.617.2.

    Note that the point of this comparison was “how badly has the protection from vaccines been damaged by the new variant”, to which the answer is not entirely reassuring but not a disaster, and with considerable uncertainty. The point wasn’t to see which of the two vaccines was better, so it hasn’t been presented to make that a fair comparison. While the first jab figures look similar, the news re second doses does make it sound like Oxford AZ (66% vs Kent to 60% vs Indian) falls from a lower base compared to Pfizer (93% to 88%) and it’s this which seems to worry people on Twitter about whether their AZ jabs will leave them properly protected. But if you read the full report, it’s clear this stat is heavily influenced by the rollout timing issue. Things are likely to improve once people’s second AZ jabs have had time to bed in for full effect.

    These findings suggest a modest reduction in vaccine effectiveness. Nevertheless, a clear effect of both vaccines was noted with high levels of effectiveness after two doses. Vaccine effects after two doses of [AZ] vaccine were smaller than for [Pfizer] against either variant. This is consistent with reported clinical trial findings. However, rollout of second doses of [AZ] was later than [Pfizer] and the difference may be explained by the limited follow-up after two doses of [AZ] if it takes more than two weeks to reach maximum effectiveness with this vaccine. Consistent with this, 74% of those who had received 2 doses of [AZ] had done so between 2 and 4 weeks prior to symptom onset compared to 46% with [Pfizer] (supplementary figure 1).

    Numbers of cases and follow-up periods are currently insufficient to estimate effectiveness against severe disease, including hospitalisation and mortality, however, previous vaccine effectiveness estimates with other variants have shown higher levels of effectiveness against more severe outcomes (10, 14, 28). Therefore, higher levels of effectiveness against severe disease may be anticipated with the B.1.617.2 vaccine

    Again I refer @Jim to that second paragraph as to why the symptomatic infection stats matter. A take-home from this which I don’t think is being made clear enough to people, judging from how people I know I have been behaving, is – at least if you are vulnerable or are in close contact with people who are vulnerable – not to go too mad with the socialising immediately after you get vaccinated. Even after the second jab, the full protection doesn’t come in for a few weeks.

    BTW anyone who wants a bit of cheering up, this paper is one of the few that finds it politically acceptable to talk about the “Wuhan strain”!!! I want to give the authors a gold star for that alone…

  29. Thanks, Tim
    Normally Ragging on Richie is a WTF
    This time it’s a LOL.

    Eurovision pop fascism. Priceless.

  30. Being anti-British pretty well defines the Paddies.

    It used to. Now they are racing the Swedes to be the first European nation to replace its natives.

    Now they’re simply anti themselves

  31. Bloke in North Dorset

    Looking at the cumulative weekly vaccine uptake by age in the vaccine surveillance report we can see really how incompetent this government is. They’ve implemented their eugenics strategy by vaccinating the oldest and most vulnerable first.

  32. @MBE: there may be sound medical/scientific reasons for getting this data (on protection from asymptomatic illness), but its obvious that this data is being used politically. If it looks like ‘OMG the AZ vaccine is less good than we thought!’ then this will be more grist to the mill of those elements in government (virtually all of them it seems) that is demanding ever longer and more severe lockdowns and controls over society. If we all them to focus on illness rather than deaths then we will never be freed from the control freaks.

  33. @BiND

    If you want a bit more weekly reading (in fact it doesn’t often change much from week to week so checking in once a fortnight or month still keeps you in touch with what’s going on) the national flu surveillance report has kept me entertained for years. Now renamed to include COVID-19, but it was never just about the flu – read the back-issues and you’ll see they’ve been tracking all kinds of weird and wonderful lurgies for many years. The most alarming bit has always been the global/”other” report that’s at the very end. Always something out there bubbling away. This time one got real. (Jamie Njoku-Goodwin – ex-spad for Hancock – did an interesting news interview where he talked about these reports and how worrying he’d found them when starting the job. But I also wonder whether they produced some complacency in a “boy who cried wolf” kinda way. If you look at the pre-2019 bulletins, you’ll see they did mention coronaviruses from the SARS-CoV-2 family before, but most of the attention was on avian flu, which the pandemic planning was centred around too.)

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-flu-and-covid-19-surveillance-reports

    Essential reading every Friday – because it does go up and down and when it moves it gives an important clue what’s going on – is the ONS Covid infection survey. Random sampling of households is far better than looking at case rates, which are affected by test-seeking behaviour and the way e.g. surge testing is targeted. Hospitalisations and deaths are more important stats, but they’re lagging indicators. The ONS survey gives some advanced warning of the shape of things to come for the next few weeks, and the detail it provides is better (and often clearer!) in the ONS’s own write-up than the media coverage that follows.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/previousReleases

  34. They’ve implemented their eugenics strategy by vaccinating the oldest and most vulnerable first.

    Your joke reveals the real curiosity: why are they vaccinating anyone other than the old / vulnerable? Why are they now offering vaccination to under 30s, for whom the vaccine effectiveness against mortality is the same as shagging someone with symptomatic covid?

    98% of over 60s have antibodies.
    72% of the adult population now has antibodies.
    Therefore we’re done; Covid19 is no longer a national emergency.

    Unless, that is, Luc Montagnier is correct and mass vaccination during a pandemic is reckless and leads to the emergence of resistant variants and antibody-dependent enhancement.

  35. There’s also a central page for new variant information, but it’s a bit of a hodge-podge – occasional technical briefings, slideshows, spreadsheets, news releases. Following the surveillance reports and keeping an eye on the news (or the appropriate people on twitter) will usually fill you in on what you most want to know about currently circulating variants. But if you’re ever curious for more detail, it’s probably somewhere under:

    http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/new-sars-cov-2-variant

    (But irritatingly I don’t think everything is. The pre-print paper I mentioned above, although from PHE, doesn’t seem to be. And modelling work on the variant by university teams seems to mostly be kept on their own websites even if it’s been commissioned for official use.)

  36. @PJF

    “Why are they now offering vaccination to under 30s, for whom the vaccine effectiveness against mortality…”

    I can understand eagerness to quit the social/economic restrictions ASAP. I really can’t grasp what the proposed benefit of quitting vaccinating people is? We vaccinate people against diseases that only have minute chances of killing them all the time – so long as the health benefit of protection (from both death but also serious or even mildly unpleasant disease) is greater than the health risks associated with vaccination, the deal’s worthwhile on an individual level. On a social level, you need to factor in the indirect benefits of vaccination – that vaccinating the young/healthy also protects the old/vulnerable (whose protection, even if vaccinated, is not complete) due to reduced transmission – and, in a cost-effectiveness analysis, the cost of delivering the programme.

    Even on current terms, vaccinating young people looks like a winning proposition both individually and socially. If we get faced with a variant against which the vaccines offer rather less protection (not a far-fetched proposition) we’ll be glad of every arm we got jabs into – some protection is better than none, and transmission will be slower the lower down the risk profile we’ve been able to jab. A really good scenario would be to reach herd immunity threshold plus a safety margin, so by the end of the vaccine rollout we’ve got the R of the then-prevailing strain down to 0.9, say, even with no social restrictions. If something new comes along that can breach the vaccine defences a bit better, then if we’re lucky that advantage still doesn’t get its R above 1 and aside from a few self-contained outbreaks, it just never really takes off. But you’d have to jab an awful lot of people to get to that point.

    The really interesting/tricky question is whether vaccination gets extended to under-18s. Kids generally do even better against Covid than 20-somethings do (the reverse is true for flu, for which we do routinely vaccinate kids) so the vaccination is of relatively little benefit to them individually. But if you’ve got ~20% of your population you don’t vaccinate at all, plus any who don’t take up the offer higher up the age spectrum, then even once you subtract those who’ve been previously infected, it’s a struggle to reach herd immunity and certainly to reach herd immunity plus a safety margin. The more transmissible strains we’ve had since December bump up that threshold considerably. I think older teenagers, at least, are very likely to get added to the programme.

    Now I suspect your counter-argument is basically “just talking about herd immunity shows you’re not listening to me – we vaccinated the old and vulnerable, so we’re done. Le fin. It doesn’t matter if we get more infections. The people who need it are protected so only a tiny proportion will get sick or die.” The problem with this, if you sit down and do the maths, is that a small portion of a large number can still end up as an uncomfortably large number. Now, you can argue the case that a certain number of deaths is acceptable, on a cost-benefit analysis, in return for restoring people’s personal and economic freedom, and we shouldn’t delay reopening for that reason. You’d need to do some work, state your assumptions, crunch the numbers, stick figures on the value of a life. But people can and do build cases like that, and good faith disagreements are possible. People who set a lower but still plausible value on a human life or QALY will be keener to end restrictions faster. Fine. But I just cannot see, no matter how much you mangle the numbers to try to make it work, any way to make the case that the vaccination programme should have stopped at Group 9 (the 50+) rather than work its way down the age bands. The low cost (and at this stage, sunk cost) of vaccines, the fact they’re individually beneficial on a health benefit/cost calculation, the fact the indirect benefits to society matter too, all point to continued vaccination being a no-brainer of a policy. And if you’re vociferously opposed to lockdown, those indirect benefits of reduced transmission matter a lot – even if you think lockdowns are appalling policy, we live in a world in which governments across Europe and elsewhere apparently feel compelled to resort to them in certain circumstances. Not least because of popular demand – body counts and dead grannies seem even more unpopular than hard-headed economic analysis of the value of life. The circumstances that produce lockdown, potentially in response to a new variant, can be made much less likely by reducing transmission even in an unrestricted society. Vaccinations are a relatively cheap way of achieving that. Even from a lockdown-sceptic perspective, vaccines for young’uns are a winner, surely?

  37. “The circumstances that produce lockdown, potentially in response to a new variant, can be made much less likely by reducing transmission even in an unrestricted society. Vaccinations are a relatively cheap way of achieving that. Even from a lockdown-sceptic perspective, vaccines for young’uns are a winner, surely?”

    But the vaccine don’t prevent transmission. They ‘may’ reduce it, but don’t stop it. And as the virus mutates it will probably mean that the vaccines have less and less effect on transmission anyway.

    All I can see in this whole episode is young people being shat on from a great height by middle aged people who have shit themselves because they’ve suddenly realised they are not immortal, and death might be just around the corner. Young people have had their educations ruined, their jobs taken away from them, their formative years destroyed, and their futures trashed, all in the name of stopping middle aged fat people from catching a disease that might kill one in a hundred of them. And thats not enough, now they’ve got to be forced to take a vaccine that has worse health outcomes than the disease they are being vaccinated against.

    To be honest I wouldn’t blame young people from rising up and killing everyone over the age of 50. The over 50s have taken everything they can out of society and now are hoarding it all for themselves. Education, jobs, housing, healthcare, you name it the post war generation took the lot and pulled up the drawbridge. I wouldn’t blame the young if they decided they’d had enough.

  38. The post-war generation inadvertently offered the young easy ways to avoid effort , pain and discomfort, easy ways to have fun without care of the consequences. They can still do what we did, the doors are open. But a little deferred gratification may be required.

  39. The more transmissible strains we’ve had since December . . .

    Yes, funny coincidence, that.

    Even from a lockdown-sceptic perspective, vaccines for young’uns are a winner, surely?

    Some virologists, including Nobel Prize winners, are saying otherwise in fewer words.

  40. @Jim

    All I can see in this whole episode is young people being shat on from a great height by middle aged people who have shit themselves because they’ve suddenly realised they are not immortal, and death might be just around the corner. Young people have had their educations ruined, their jobs taken away from them, their formative years destroyed, and their futures trashed, all in the name of stopping middle aged fat people from catching a disease that might kill one in a hundred of them. And thats not enough, now they’ve got to be forced to take a vaccine that has worse health outcomes than the disease they are being vaccinated against.

    To be honest I wouldn’t blame young people from rising up and killing everyone over the age of 50. The over 50s have taken everything they can out of society and now are hoarding it all for themselves. Education, jobs, housing, healthcare, you name it the post war generation took the lot and pulled up the drawbridge. I wouldn’t blame the young if they decided they’d had enough.

    +1

    I have two kids at university. They’ve had a shit year or two, and they aren’t getting it back. Meanwhile, despite living in an area crawling with old people I still don’t know anyone who has died of this. I was very concerned at the start – now barely concerned at all.

  41. Dio–There are far better masters of the long dull rant above. MBE wins the NiV Cockrot Award for 2021 hands down.

    There –of course–would be no reason for money men taking in billions to lie about the efficacy of their shite.

    Which you are free to drown yourself in. And I am free to have fuckall to do with.

  42. Meanwhile, despite living in an area crawling with old people I still don’t know anyone who has died of this. I was very concerned at the start – now barely concerned at all.

    I don’t know anyone that’s died of the kung flu. I know at least one that died from cancer after getting no treatment; and 2 (both in their 70s) that suddenly dropped dead a week after getting their first jab. I’ve no idea if the vaccine was the reason, but it’s certainly a bit of a coincidence.

  43. @Jim

    Spot on – brilliant comment. The behaviour of the Baby Boomers has been beyond disgraceful and frankly the oft discussed (at least in Murphy’s circles) max voting age might need introduction…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *