I can't see it happening, not for a long time. After all, if you're young and healthy, there's no chance that the NHS will be vaccinating you, not for many months yet. So such a policy would mean huge swathes of society would only be open to those who pay to go private. The optics of that are terrible, and the Opposition would rightly point out it would mean restrictions for the poor and freedom for the rich.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Our total reliance on a vaccine and putting life on hold until it's rolled out
- Thread starter yorkie
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Unfortunately, given the state of the Labour party on this issue, I'd lay good money that their approach would be to criticise the Government for not vaccinating people more quickly, rather than pointing out what an appalling idea it is in the first place.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,739
And?
I don't see how this disadvantages the government.
What 20 or 30 year olds think is of no consequence, they vote Labour anyway.
Meanwhile boomers will hail Boris as the hero who not only gave them Brexit, but also vanquished the virus despite those layabout youngsters spreading it all over the place.
bramling
Veteran Member
The Conservatives need to be careful. The “red wall” votes are not a given next time round at all (in fact on the contrary I’d say), and more concerning should be people like myself who are traditional Conservative voters who are *extremely* unhappy, dissatisfied and uncomfortable with a number of aspects relating to BJ’s performance.
Whilst it’s true that the baby boomers tend to vote, so does “Basildon Man” in the middle, which is ultimately what swings many elections. They need to be very careful alienating all these various groups, the red wall, the traditional working-age, and the swing voters.
Of course BJ knows a lot of this will be someone else’s problem in 2024. I’d say it’s a completely safe bet that he won’t be fighting it.
I agree and would agree that they are not only losing the "red wall" voters but also people who have always voted blue
bramling
Veteran Member
The question is how many of the latter group they might get back by 2024. Under no circumstances would I vote for a Johnson-led Conservative party in 2024, and it’s this chatter that guarantees he won’t be fighting it, assuming he doesn’t skulk off in the meantime which I think is highly likely.
What I’d do in 2024 is less clear however, and that doesn’t mean I’d vote Starmer. As things stand at this moment I’d be either voting for someone like Farage simply as a protest, or perhaps more likely spoil the paper.
I can forgive many of the policy mistakes, though the longer this drags on the less this applies, however Johnson has shown himself to be utterly unfit for the role, on which score I cannot vote for a party led by him.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,696
Bit of a blanket statement, I know quite a few 20-30 year olds who voted Conservative at last election but already are fed up with current clowns and certainly wouldn't vote for them at the moment.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,739
Well the Conservatives don't need them to win at the next election.
It just needs as many pensioners alive and happy as possible.
Isn’t this just discrimination? So if you don’t want or had not been vaccinated you can’t go anywhere?
Yet anytime you got vaccinated for the flu you didn’t need to carry something on you!
I’ll use the word “strange” but it doesn’t settle for me, are the politicians lined up too to be vaccinated or is it just for public?
Bantamzen
Established Member
Given that the government have already set out the prioritisation of administering the vaccine, that would mean that for months or even years only the elderly and health/care workers could go. Somehow, I can't see that working.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,739
Bantamzen
Established Member
Even much of the Tory supporter base wouldn't tolerate not being able to go to sporting or art events.
It could if you extend it to 'vaccination or recent negative test'. That's pretty much the entire point of Operation Moonshot ('enabling tests', as the PM so delightfully put it) after all.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,739
The vast majority of the Tory voter base will be amongst the first in the queue.
One by one our civil liberties are being eroded - fuelled by a load of sheep on the internet (including here!) telling us that they are all small sacrifices that need to be made for the greater good.
It's not that long ago that if such a restriction on freedoms was seen in another country there would be a global outcry and governments would be pressing for military options to remove the dictators imposing them.
Welcome to our future.
Bantamzen
Established Member
That would require quite regular testing though.
Not all Tories are retired or in hospital / care homes.
brad465
Established Member
Such a policy would inevitably cause mass civil unrest among those being deprived of freedom while others are not because of a Government policy. Whether you like it or not, unrest affects everybody directly or indirectly and undermines confidence in the incumbent Government.
But that's the plan! They've explicitly said so.
See what the PM said on the 9th September
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...94DF5-3079-4DEE-85A7-6F7B96F60BE2/Engagements
(bold mine)
The irony yet so true!
If it’s for the greater good by all means put all the politicians up first for vaccinations then if need be the public, surely that has to be logical and maybe once and for all knock out the conspiracies dead, oh wait never mind.
Being vaccinated or not isn’t a protected characteristic.
Politicians will get their opportunity to be vaccinated depending on which category they fall in. They don't get any priority because they are politicians. If they wait their turn then people will say they should be getting vaccinated to set an example, but if they do get vaccinated before their turn then people will say they are jumping the queue.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Its one thing them liking the idea, but in practice...
I understand that but since it seems that they have an interest in the vaccines it should really be them going first than anyone else.
I would say only in this case I would allow it.
brad465
Established Member
With today's projections from the OBR of the economic impacts of the whole lockdown-orientated strategy, there is some correlation to showing how unsustainable the strategy is and has been so far:
(https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1331678047435706368)
Apologies I couldn't find the original source link for the chart so just pasted the tweet link I found it via.
We are second worst, with fellow lockdown countries of Spain, France, Italy and Belgium also up among the worst, while Sweden is clearly among the better performers, although Ireland has fared well surprisingly despite having an initial lockdown.
(https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1331678047435706368)
Apologies I couldn't find the original source link for the chart so just pasted the tweet link I found it via.
We are second worst, with fellow lockdown countries of Spain, France, Italy and Belgium also up among the worst, while Sweden is clearly among the better performers, although Ireland has fared well surprisingly despite having an initial lockdown.
bramling
Veteran Member
Britain seems to have hit that sweet spot of having a severe economic impact *and* a poorer death rate relative to peers.
This has shown up structural weaknesses with our economy.
Skimpot flyer
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,613
The phrase ‘the operation was a success, but, unfortunately, the patient died’ springs to mind...
I think a substantial part of this is also the economic sectors that have been most affected by Covid (for all countries) and each country's exposure to it. It's not as simplistic as "hard lockdown = dramatic GDP decline" and whilst this is a key factor I think that, as Bramling put it, there are structural weaknesses to contend with.
Spain is likely to have been hit hard by the loss of tourists, which is unlikely to have been such a big issue for those countries which saw falls off 5% or less. In fact of you asked a fairly decent sample size, with the noticeable exception of Ireland, most people would most likely travel to those countries hit hardest more than those with lower levels of impact.
Ireland has probably been insulated by having a fairly high level of tech companies due to their low tax rates. Meaning that there's little need for them to go somewhere to work.
Also another factor is likely to be how much people travel about within a country for work. London draws a LOT of people into it, if you stop doing that then you harm the companies who exist to provide services to those workers. However it's not just London, but Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, etc.
Conversely other than Dublin (1.2 million people) the next largest city is Cork (0.2 million). Whilst the UK's 6th largest city (Sheffield) has double that population (0.4 million) and it's only once you get down to the 15th largest city (Liecester) that you strat to see cities of a similar size.
However then the third largest city, Limerick, has a population of 100,000. That's like a large town, probably of not that great a note when compared to most of our larger towns or or cities. For instance Basingstoke is also about 100,000 as is the whole of the borough of Guildford.
As such chances are the risk of spread is much reduced and so the need to lock down isn't as great. As one of the big risks is close proximity to someone with the virus. Well at 69 people per square km in Ireland vs 429 people per square km in England and 4,600 people per square km of Dublin vs 5,700 people per square km of London and 4,700 people per square km of Manchester the risk of infection is much higher in much of the population of the UK.
However it does highlight what a blunt instrument lockdown is and that is better to try other methods before if we are able.
However there's limited other options which are likely to provide the same level of benefits.
For instance, even the most favourable evidence shows that mask wearing is only going to have limited impact. Whilst vaccines take time to develop.
Maybe, to protect us from any future virus, we should be looking to reducing how tightly packed that we are in many of our cities. (Bringing it a vaguely rail related point) maybe we shouldn't be reliant on such overcrowded trains to get about (not that rail travel is that risky for Covid-19, although that's no guarantee for other virus, but rather it highlights just how tightly packed or cities are).
I agree with most of the logic here, however the argument that we should fundementall change the structure of our society to protect against one in a hundred year events seems flawed. UNLESS doing so also improves happiness and standards of living.
A few other factors to consider are that the virus was seeded in the UK on thousands of occasions. It entered the country on at least 1300 unique occasions.
It's also unclear to what extent the death rate depends on how healthy people are, but I don't think the UK is going to compare well to most other countries in that regard (the USA being a notable exception of course!).
We also have had some very good 'flu years in which much fewer elderly people died than in previous years, leaving more people susceptible than may otherwise have been the case.
I think it's too early to really analyse the impact of these, and other, factors though and it's an entire subject in its own right.
It's also unclear to what extent the death rate depends on how healthy people are, but I don't think the UK is going to compare well to most other countries in that regard (the USA being a notable exception of course!).
We also have had some very good 'flu years in which much fewer elderly people died than in previous years, leaving more people susceptible than may otherwise have been the case.
I think it's too early to really analyse the impact of these, and other, factors though and it's an entire subject in its own right.
- Status