No vaccinations for the under 50s!!!!!

*tries to hold back the laughter*

This is like watching ted bundy try to say he didnt do anything wrong. Will just lie and lie and lie until they can't, then will lie about why that happened.

a reply to: thethinkingman

Can you please use the reply button?

Thank you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at www.ft.com...
www.ft.com...

The JCVI said there had not been a decision on who would be eligible for the vaccine. 

The health department said it was looking at advice from the JCVI, adding that it wanted “as many people as possible to access a Covid-19 vaccine”.

Ms Bingham, who is also managing partner at fund manager SV Health Investors, said that if any vaccine proved to be 95 per cent effective, which is thought to be unlikely, then it may make sense to vaccinate more widely but any decision on this would be taken later

Wasn't an offical decision.

Ms Bingham wouldn't be the person to make such a decision regardless.

She added caveats.

You have to think something better than this.

She wasn't speaking her mind or wasn't expressing her personal opinion. She was referring to what discussed and agreed with the government scientists and advisors at that time and not that many weeks before the start of the vaccination program. In addition she was the head of the vaccine task force.

Political interference changed these decisions as it seems. Which as I said is at least scandalous, not to say criminal.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You should maybe put it in a quote to make it more obvious then, or use the reply "button".

Also the lockdowns weren't vehemently opposed here in the UK, people excepted the first lockdown without any opposition at all.

I did put it in quotes

And the lockdowns were massively opposed in the UK.

Polls showed that lockdown measures were overwhelmingly supported or not viewed as strict enough.

Here is1.

www.ipsos.com...

Evidence they were vehemently opposed?

For every person that attended these protests how many more were sitting at home on their arses or working?

www.google.ca... HexXD_oQ_AUoA3oECAMQAw&biw=375&bih=629&dpr=2#ip=1

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

There a Public Inquiry going on here about COVID and our Govt's response:

covid19.public-inquiry.uk...

Yes. And a legal investigation should follow

So in a few words the Government interfered and changed the decision not to vaccinate those under 50. That simple.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Let's see what the result is.

Probably won't do Boris any favours though.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at www.ft.com...
www.ft.com...

The JCVI said there had not been a decision on who would be eligible for the vaccine. 

The health department said it was looking at advice from the JCVI, adding that it wanted “as many people as possible to access a Covid-19 vaccine”.

Ms Bingham, who is also managing partner at fund manager SV Health Investors, said that if any vaccine proved to be 95 per cent effective, which is thought to be unlikely, then it may make sense to vaccinate more widely but any decision on this would be taken later

Wasn't an offical decision.

Ms Bingham wouldn't be the person to make such a decision regardless.

She added caveats.

You have to think something better than this.

She wasn't speaking her mind or wasn't expressing her personal opinion. She was referring to what discussed and agreed with the government scientists and advisors at that time and not that many weeks before the start of the vaccination program. In addition she was the head of the vaccine task force.

Political interference changed these decisions as it seems. Which as I said is at least scandalous, not to say criminal.

Your own link contradicts your claim.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You should maybe put it in a quote to make it more obvious then, or use the reply "button".

Also the lockdowns weren't vehemently opposed here in the UK, people excepted the first lockdown without any opposition at all.

I did put it in quotes

And the lockdowns were massively opposed in the UK.

Polls showed that lockdown measures were overwhelmingly supported or not viewed as strict enough.

Here is1.

www.ipsos.com...

Evidence they were vehemently opposed?

For every person that attended these protests how many more were sitting at home on their arses or working?

www.google.ca... HexXD_oQ_AUoA3oECAMQAw&biw=375&bih=629&dpr=2#ip=1

Small scale protests.

So few people confirms that lockdowns weren't vehemently opposed as claimed.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at www.ft.com...
www.ft.com...

The JCVI said there had not been a decision on who would be eligible for the vaccine. 

The health department said it was looking at advice from the JCVI, adding that it wanted “as many people as possible to access a Covid-19 vaccine”.

Ms Bingham, who is also managing partner at fund manager SV Health Investors, said that if any vaccine proved to be 95 per cent effective, which is thought to be unlikely, then it may make sense to vaccinate more widely but any decision on this would be taken later

Wasn't an offical decision.

Ms Bingham wouldn't be the person to make such a decision regardless.

She added caveats.

You have to think something better than this.

She wasn't speaking her mind or wasn't expressing her personal opinion. She was referring to what discussed and agreed with the government scientists and advisors at that time and not that many weeks before the start of the vaccination program. In addition she was the head of the vaccine task force.

Political interference changed these decisions as it seems. Which as I said is at least scandalous, not to say criminal.

Your own link contradicts your claim.

That's only true in your imagination and nowhere else.

Any evidence for this claim?

a reply to: Asmodeus3


I already quoted the text.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3


I already quoted the text.

Yes you quoted my text. And?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3


I already quoted the text.

Yes you quoted my text. And?

I quoted from your link.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3


I already quoted the text.

Here it is again

"People keep talking about time to vaccinate the whole population but that is misguided, she said. There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable."


"Ms Bingham said vaccination policy would be aimed at those most at risk and noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, could cause them some freak harm potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis."

Do you see how she contradicts all those who have claimed that vaccines were meant for everyone. The fact is that they were not. Unless you are in a denial.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Here it is again as well.

The JCVI said there had not been a decision on who would be eligible for the vaccine.

The health department said it was looking at advice from the JCVI, adding that it wanted “as many people as possible to access a Covid-19 vaccine”.

Ms Bingham, who is also managing partner at fund manager SV Health Investors, said that if any vaccine proved to be 95 per cent effective, which is thought to be unlikely, then it may make sense to vaccinate more widely but any decision on this would be taken later

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You are mistaken very much and you don't seem to read what I have posted or what we discuss here. Go to the first page or should I do it for you again?

I think you'll find it's you who is mistaken on this point. As I pointed out, the government advice was linked to in the article you posted, and as ScepticScot pointed out...

Wasn't an offical decision.

Ms Bingham wouldn't be the person to make such a decision regardless.

She added caveats.

it was the Department of Health that made the decision based on advice.

1.older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
2.all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
3.all those 75 years of age and over
4.all those 70 years of age and over
5.all those 65 years of age and over
6.high-risk adults under 65 years of age
7.moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
8.all those 60 years of age and over
9.all those 55 years of age and over
10.all those 50 years of age and over
11.rest of the population (priority to be determined)

From the Department of Health at the time of the FT article.

People argueing with these "people", you might aswell shout at a computer game and expect the character to do something different.

You do realise these people are completely stupid???? Why is anyone engaging????? You dont win anything for proving an idiot doesnt know anything. Its clearly obvious.

Its like when a little kid reacts to teasing over and over thinking it will stop, doesnt understand that the other kid is just a dick. They need your reaction. Stop falling for it for christ sake, you're supposed to be clever.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You are mistaken very much and you don't seem to read what I have posted or what we discuss here. Go to the first page or should I do it for you again?

I think you'll find it's you who is mistaken on this point. As I pointed out, the government advice was linked to in the article you posted, and as ScepticScot pointed out...

Wasn't an offical decision.

Ms Bingham wouldn't be the person to make such a decision regardless.

She added caveats.

it was the Department for Health that made the decision.

I will repeat again that the vaccine task force wasn't advised by pedestrians but by scientists who only a few weeks before the start of the vaccination program have decided not to vaccinate those under 50 for safety reasons. Ms Bingham was just reflecting on the decisions wasn't speaking her mind, and even nothing yet was formalised, only a few weeks before the start of the vaccination program. The Government interfered and things changed.

And no you are mistaken again

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Here it is again as well.

The JCVI said there had not been a decision on who would be eligible for the vaccine.

The health department said it was looking at advice from the JCVI, adding that it wanted “as many people as possible to access a Covid-19 vaccine”.

Ms Bingham, who is also managing partner at fund manager SV Health Investors, said that if any vaccine proved to be 95 per cent effective, which is thought to be unlikely, then it may make sense to vaccinate more widely but any decision on this would be taken later

See post above and the opening post.
Unless you are in a denial.