As Cummings dishes the dirt, please remember that some of us knew over a year ago. Many called this a conspiracy theory but now we know.
Typhoid Mary meets the Broad Street pump (or so it seems).
Can anyone explain which dataset was used to verify that…
- Efficacy isn’t reduced over 3 months between 1st and 2nd doses?
- The delay isn’t creating an environment of evolutionary adaptation that runs a very high risk of creating a strain that’s impervious to the vaccine?
I ask because neither vaccine was tested beyond 42 days (6 weeks) and both Pfizer and Astra/Seneca have cautioned against delay, not least because there’s no dataset to analyze covering the 90 days currently mandated by this incompetent and scientifically illiterate government.
Boris got his deal, the economy is tanking (which is bad news for everyone except Boris, Rees-Mogg, Farage and their disaster capitalist mates). The UK faces major shortages and price rises on imported goods and other goods like medicines.
The financial sector is legging it to Europe, as are several of our remaining manufacturers but at least, for once, we really are in it together… including Tory and Brexit voters, most of whom lack the means to profit from Brexit like Aaron Banks will.
So let’s face facts, accept the disaster we’re stuck with and pull together to maintain our community. The lesson of history predicts major social division and unrest anytime from mid-January onward. Fuelled by the likes of Farage and co who will be desperate to blame others for their own actions, it’ll be easy for us to collapse into rioting and mutual hatred not seen in UK since the civil wars of the seventeenth century.
And (almost) nobody voted for that!
let’s stick together and come through this disastrous mess as a nation united by adversity, not a people destroyed by self-inflicted misery and the resentment it so often brings in its wake.
What happens when your MP doesn’t know how to think?
How does a man who never had an original idea finds his way into parliament?
When MPs don’t understand politics or the issues of the day how can they maintain the illusion of competence?
That’s easy – they just toe the party line and pretend to be in control of the facts (not to mention their faculties). Vacuous back-benchers have followed this simple strategy for years, often quite successfully but only when their leaders aren’t just as clueless themselves.
That’s the unfortunate reality facing Mark Jenkinson MP. When Boris flip-flops and Jenky supports every pronouncement both before and after the U-turn he only highlights the incompetence of both himself and his boss.
Perhaps that’s why he’s more likely to insult and block interlocutors than engage with them. Perhaps he doesn’t know what to say. Perhaps he really is that stupid.
What do you think?
It seems that Boris is no better than ‘Scapegoat Gav’ when it comes to messing up. They’re both equally bad at taking responsibility too.
Here’s my #nomaskselfie except I’m wearing one because I don’t want anyone to mistake me for the kind of selfish scumbag who doesn’t care about those more vulnerable than myself.
It’s been an interesting few days. Here’s a short video roundup.
Yesterday some men and women whose children won’t return to their private centres of education until September at the earliest, told the plebs to send their kids back to school. This is so that the plebs can return to work so that business owners can continue making money from the sweat of other peoples’ brows. Money for the wealthy is much more important than the lives of a few thousand oiks and chavs, after all.
Dear Mark Jenkinson MP,
I have a couple of questions. They relate to the current debate about the membership of SAGE. The government’s position appears to be unclear but do you personally believe that science should inform politics or that politics should inform science?
Bear in mind that previous attempts by politicians to influence science have resulted in dangerous psuedoscience like eugenics (AKA Social Darwinism) which completely bastardised a scientific theory for nefarious, discriminatory ends against poor people, the sick and disabled and non-Europeans.
What’s your personal view, Mark?
Should politics inform science or should science inform politics?
Mark Jenkinson says it’s “Disgusting” that the RCN is politicizing the coronavirus question. What he means is that it’s embarrassing for him to have to face questions about inadequate PPE and so he’s accusing and blaming the victims.
The fact that the NHS is a nationally funded institution that was created politically and has been managed politically ever since doesn’t mean that when we complain about working conditions we’re ‘politicizing’ anything. It just means we’re talking about our terms of employment!
How dare you try to blame the victims in all this, Mark. That’s what’s truly disgusting!
Since I posted this one or two people have accused me of biased editing. In truth I edited only slightly for brevity but was scrupulously fair in leaving Jenky enough rope to hang himself. If you’re concerned about editing you can compare my video with the original to see how little I edited this disgraceful MP’s words. Hardly anything has been changed. Click the link and go up to around 3hrs 18minutes. You’ll see that Jenky screwed himself with his own ignorant views.
We’ve learned a number of things since this pandemic struck:
• The lowest paid tend to be the most important contributors to society;
• The least valued tend to be the ones who we need the most;
• The most productive tend to receive the lowest rewards;
• The most wealthy tend to want lockdown to end quickly (some like Tim Martin and Mike Ashley even opposed it in the first place);
• People like Messrs Ashley and Martin don’t really earn their money – they live off the sweat of other peoples’ brows and don’t really give a toss about their employees’ health or welfare.
We’re a little over three weeks into the lockdown which, although effective was implemented far too late. That accounts for the rising death toll, especially in comparison with other countries like Germany who heeded the warnings coming out of Italy much sooner than we did. A little over three weeks in which Brits have pulled together and actually started working like a caring society again, with food parcels, accommodation for homeless people and good-neighbour schemes popping up spontaneously all across the land. But there’s no profit in that which probably explains why so many of our wealthiest citizens are calling for the lockdown to end.
Let’s have a look at what will need to be in place before we can begin even to contemplate relaxing the rules. The World Health Organisation recommends that six key conditions are met if we are to have any hope of preventing a new wave of infections after lock down:
1. Transmission is controlled;
2. Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact;
3. Outbreak risks are minimised in special settings like health facilities and nursing homes;
4. Preventative measures are in place in workplaces, schools and other places where it’s essential for people to go;
5. ‘Importation’ risks can be managed;
6. Communities are fully educated, engaged and empowered to adjust to the ‘new norm’.
Any attempt to relax lockdown without putting all these conditions in place risks even more lives, presumably in the name of profit for wealth
creators takers like Martin and Ashley. It certainly won’t be to benefit the minimum wage Wetherspoons employees that Mr. Martin abandoned so casually or the minimum wage JB Sports staff who Mr. Ashley wanted to keep working in the midst of the outbreak. Getting these people back at work will profit the company owners and directors, not the working people who actually risk their lives in the service of their Masters’ profit margin.
Many years ago Sir Keith Joseph, then a member of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet was speaking with Tony Benn, Labour shadow cabinet minister in a televised panel show. I’ll never forget Mr. Benn’s words and they couldn’t be more poignant than they are today…
“Your people invest their money… My people invest their lives”
I know the lockdown is frustrating but that’s nothing compared to the potential death toll if we get this wrong. There must be no end to the lockdown, however difficult it may be until all these conditions are in place. And when people complain about the loss to the economy remember we could just reverse all those tax cuts for billionaires and multinational companies, remove the privileged position tax havens enjoy in our system of government and all will be well.
For centuries the wealth of the few has been preserved via the loss of many lives.
Now let’s preserve many lives via the loss of at least some of the wealth of the few.
According to my local MP the UK has loads of ICU beds, respirators and the staff to operate them. He says the NHS is doing well locally. The fact that we went into this crisis with only around a quarter of the NHS beds we had when the service began in the late 1940s seems not to have bothered him a jot. It’s true that some of that reduction can be explained by the number of services currently delivered in the community. But that doesn’t account for such a massive drop in infrastructure given how many more of us there are now than there were 70 odd years ago immediately after a worldwide war.
A large part of the reason why we went into this crisis so unprepared is because of 10 years of conservative cuts on the health service.
A large part of the reason why we went into this crisis so understaffed is because the tories have spent the last 10 years abusing the workforce.
A large part of the reason that we went into this crisis so under-resourced was because when everyone else was buying up PPE, ventilators and other equipment we were still being told to sing happy birthday by our Prime Minister who made a song and dance about shaking hands with hospitalised Covid-19 patients. What an example to set!
And now – Now – they tell us that we’ve plenty of ICU beds. If so, why is the government developing protocols that deny ICU care to older people?
Why are we preventing care home patients from entering ICU or even ordinary hospital wards should they contract Covid-19?
Why has government policy been not to count care home deaths, even when the figures are available?
I don’t know the answers to these questions but I do know this…
Ever since Cameron formed his ConDem government in 2010 the tory party has waged war on benefits claimants.
The largest and most expensive group of benefits claimants are old age pensioners and long-term disabled citizens.
The government didn’t start this pandemic – no government did – but that doesn’t mean they can’t take advantage of it.
Boris’ original ‘do nothing’/Herd immunity plan would have been a brilliant way to cull the elderly and the sick but the media let the cat out of the bag along with citizens from other countries like Italy and they had to change tack.
So next they lied about trying to source ventilators etc whilst refusing to join the EU procurement scheme and failing actually to put in any orders.
The media called them out on that too so they started work on building extra capacity and attempting to encourage people back to work in the NHS that the government drove them out of so recently.
Then they realised that they could still cull the elderly by encouraging DNACPR agreements on the grounds that we need the ICU beds for people who pay tax. They could reserve the real treatment for those people who had a chance of increasing tory party donors’ profits once they get back to work. So they set up a kind of stealth rationing system until once again the media called them out on it. Now they pretend to be some sort of rescuer when actually it was their policy in the first place.
This stuff raises a lot more questions than it answers but here’s some very straight inquiries for my MP, Mark Jenkinson…
If we have such wonderful capacity in the NHS, why did anyone feel the need to blanket DNR the elderly population in the first place?
Was it a decision born of necessity like battlefield triage (unnecessary if we have all that spare capacity) or of ideology and a desire to cull the ‘useless eaters’?
Does the NHS have all this spare capacity you speak of simply because it’s not treating senior citizens and abandoning those whom the government considers too expensive to breathe?