UK Politics General Discussion

[Poisson]

At times, vaccines may well have been safe and useful.

That time is now. It has been since 1796.

I wouldn't care about such views if they didn't destroy herd immunity that protects the weakened, the very old and the very young. The minute people start working against the health of those who cannot take the vaccine themselves or establish an immune response, it becomes a different matter.

 

[Dave]

A strawman. I never said everything man-made is dangerous, or that anything natural is safe. I am simply saying there is pause for thought, surely, before injecting something into the bloodstream.



Regardless, it can fine TV channels, which is why GB News was quick to drop excellent presenters such as Neil Oliver (from broadcast) and Mark Steyn.



At times, vaccines may well have been safe and useful.

The problem is, governments around the world lied to us and continued to encourage a product that was anything but. Those who have tried to prove its deliberate, harmful purpose are either dead or in prison. With that in mind, how can we trust that any substance is what it's purported to be? How can we trust that it has genuinely been tested? I am not saying that people should be anti-vax, but it is easy to understand, surely?

Regardless, this discussion is about media bias, and I am simply saying all views must be heard.

There were no lies about the Covid vaccines, it’s a convenient conspiracy theory trope to say those who have the so called “evidence” are dead or in prison.

Covid vaccines have been proven to be very safe, a lot of “wellness influencers” who are anti vax are just manipulating science or outright lying. The classic one thrown out is myocarditis in young men. A study of 42.8 million people found those vaccinated who then got Covid had a 50% reduced prevalence of myocarditis than unvaccinated people, a further study of 14 million children found those not vaccinated had a far higher chance of blood clotting conditions. Yet as a comparison Vinay Prasad a well known vaccine skeptic influencer actively manipulated his representation of a recent paper to say vaccines increased myocarditis when the paper said the exact opposite….

All the covid vaccines were heavily tested (and they all used vaccine technology already well tested, even mRNA vaccine have been around for a while). The reason the vaccines could be produced quickly was money was thrown at the problem and we had a lot of virus in the community so we could get the sample size needed to prove efficacy and safety much faster than outside a pandemic.

At the end of the day all a vaccine is is a protein we show the immune system so when it sees it again it identifies it quicker. mRNA vaccines just use protein factories in cells to produce the protein, they don’t mess with DNA, they don’t even come close to entering the cell nucleus.

Wellness influencers make millions peddling lies, and now we are seeing horrific infectious diseases we had previously suppressed coming back with a vengeance, honestly I think vaccine conspiracy theorist influencers are murderers.

 

[jon81uk]

Wellness influencers make millions peddling lies, and now we are seeing horrific infectious diseases we had previously suppressed coming back with a vengeance, honestly I think vaccine conspiracy theorist influencers are murderers.

Yes in a similar way to if a cult encourages people to take their own life, should cult-like conspiracy influencers be held more accountable for deaths as herd immunity drops?

 

[Benzin]

Yes in a similar way to if a cult encourages people to take their own life, should cult-like conspiracy influencers be held more accountable for deaths as herd immunity drops?

You mean people should face the consequences of their actions?

Chance would be a fine thing in this day and age. They end up getting martyred and continue on their grifting trail to squeeze more money out of those desperate enough for a solution.

 

[Dave]

What amazes me is the same scientific principles that say vaccines are safe and effective also creates the treatments the same people refusing vaccines rush to on a daily basis.

I once asked an anti-vaxer if they refuse paracetamol for a headache and they looked at me
Incredulous. When I pointed out paracetamol regularly causes abdominal pain, constipation and a rash and rarely causes liver failure, kidney failure and Steven’s-Johnson syndrome they suddenly changed the subject….

 

[Smiley]

Well we've only just figured out how paracetamol works to inhibit pain. Those man-made vaccines - we understand how they work very well.

Back on topic, I'd vote for Reform. Not because they'll do a good job - but it might get Lab/Con to really think about what their party stands for! Right now, I have no idea.

 

[Hid]

I'd vote for Reform. Not because they'll do a good job - but it might get Lab/Con to really think about what their party stands for! Right now, I have no idea.

I would advise against this because voting for Reform will only inflict more pain onto people rather than the two other parties. Reform are unfiltered Tories.

And they could do irreversible damage to the UK.

I recommend tactically vote for any party that can keep Reform out

I would vote tory only to keep Reform out

 

[Smiley]

I think Reform will do very little. But if I'm really honest, I'd like someone to sort out the justice backlog and the ever-increasing welfare bill. Labour don't have the stomach for either, and the Tories are equally weak IMHO. There is no good solution, but Labour have completely squandered their last win. If you can't even keep that, how can you run the country.

 

[Dave]

I think Reform will do very little. But if I'm really honest, I'd like someone to sort out the justice backlog and the ever-increasing welfare bill. Labour don't have the stomach for either, and the Tories are equally weak IMHO. There is no good solution, but Labour have completely squandered their last win. If you can't even keep that, how can you run the country.

Reform won’t deal with the legal backlog and the only way to deal with the large welfare bill is to reduce or get rid of the state pension which accounts for the majority of the bill. The majority of the welfare spend on working age people are spent on people in work, and I don’t think Farage is going to make employers increases wages so much that they can cut those….

Not defending Labour as they are not doing amazing (some of that is comms as the workers rights and renters rights bills (which Farage objected to) are really good). But even one term of Reform will guarantee privatisation of the NHS and tax cuts for rich people at a minimum.

 

[Smiley]

The NHS is already part privatised - from farming out to the private sector to NHS consultants working part time in the private sector. As someone with private healthcare (reducing the burden on the NHS but still taxed on it.....) - there needs to be new thinking. Labour are tinkering around the edges, and not even in a good way.

As someone approaching retirement, continually moving the goalposts (age) for pension entitlement smacks of despair.

 

[rob666]

Again, forty five years ago I was informed not to expect a pension at sixty five, it would be around seventy.
Correct Mr Wooldridge in Geography.

If they don't move the goalposts, the country goes bust all the quicker.
Simple as that, the numbers don't add up.

Also someone approaching retirement.

The whole nation and planet smacks of despair.

Be thankful that we won't have to suffer as long as the young 'uns.

 

[Benzin]

As someone approaching retirement, continually moving the goalposts (age) for pension entitlement smacks of despair.

Imagine how despairing it is to know you're likely still 40+ years away from being able to claim it.

 

[Dave]

The NHS is already part privatised - from farming out to the private sector to NHS consultants working part time in the private sector. As someone with private healthcare (reducing the burden on the NHS but still taxed on it.....) - there needs to be new thinking. Labour are tinkering around the edges, and not even in a good way.

As someone approaching retirement, continually moving the goalposts (age) for pension entitlement smacks of despair.

1) Yes the Tories tried to privatise it and use of private provision is higher than it should be but the majority of care is still run publicly.

2) Your private health insurance is actually effectively subsidised by the NHS. Currently private provision does not have to cover emergency care, and very few private hospitals support intensive care services. They also generally send complex patients back to the NHS even when they have cover. Current UK private provision is very basic even for high end premiums, there are a couple of big private hospitals that do everything but they cater to the super rich, and even the hospital the royals use is directly attached to an NHS hospital…

Do you think your private premiums will stay the same as they are now if these private providers have to start covering those services as well?

Plus Farage doesn’t want a new way of thinking, you can argue for a continental style health system (everyone would be paying more for it but you can make the argument to emulate the French and German system), but he wants the US system, which means sky high costs and if you don’t have insurance you die.

 

[BarryZola]

I think Reform will do very little. But if I'm really honest, I'd like someone to sort out the justice backlog and the ever-increasing welfare bill. Labour don't have the stomach for either, and the Tories are equally weak IMHO. There is no good solution, but Labour have completely squandered their last win. If you can't even keep that, how can you run the country.

I won't vote Reform as I think they'd quicken up the decline of the country. However, I agree with it being very important to sort out the justice backlog and the welfare bill. I can't vote Labour or Cons either at the moment. If nothing changes it'll be any other decent looking party. Not that that'll help.

 

[Smiley]

Current UK private provision is very basic even for high end premiums

I disagree. My health insurance not only provides care AT THE TIME it's needed, but also provides e.g. diagnostics you'd have to jump through hoops to get on the NHS. I've always had great experiences with the NHS, but waiting 3 weeks instead of 33 weeks is a game-changer.

 

[Dave]

I disagree. My health insurance not only provides care AT THE TIME it's needed, but also provides e.g. diagnostics you'd have to jump through hoops to get on the NHS. I've always had great experiences with the NHS, but waiting 3 weeks instead of 33 weeks is a game-changer.

Neither of those things are emergency care, or intensive care.

Just like tax based systems you are not building a pot for your own health care, your premiums while healthy pay for other people’s current health needs. If the private providers had to provide those services then they would need everyone to pay more to cover that (and their profits).

The irony as well is private providers often have older equipment than the NHS, the MRI and CT scanners at my Trust are far more modern and capable than the local Private hospital, we often have to repeat scans for those who are transferred back into the NHS because the ones they had in the private sector where so bad.

Private health care in the UK does speed up access, whether that actually benefits people to the tune of the money they spend is debatable. Private run health systems tend to not speed anything up for the average person, any system can be quick if it cherry picks the population it is serving.

 

[rob666]

I was mid type when the above message came up.

Private health care in this country is incomplete, suddenly very poorly..off to the nhs a&e for you...no other option.

And of course, the biggest issue, it creates a two tier state for health.

Not very good for a more equal society.

Which is, of course, where we should be heading.