Well, the link in my above post has scientists suggesting that it is a bit more complicated than just "blood clots", and why think there are some justifiable worries: Of course politicians made it political well before then --and not just in the EU-- which undermines credibility of scientists' cautions and opinions, as well as those of lockdowns, masks and vaccines.
Sorry, I was AWOL with work for many days. Necro'ing on what I missed True re: the panel shows. It's the entertainment/lite/feelgood bits of programming that hit me with the smug echo chamber vibe. Their actual hard programming seems to be to be generically populist and cowardly - they just opportunistically report whatever they think will generate the most clicks while upsetting the fewest people. I agree that the Tories would be exerting an influence out of love of power and control, not out of a desire for fairness. But if the Tories cajoling the BBC to be more right actually resulted in more right-wing pieces mixed into the existing programming, this would be a good thing because it'd make the service more politically diverse. For me it's not about the BBC sitting at one balancing point on the imaginary X-axis; it's about them covering a wider range of positions and interests. Like you, I want to see more hard-left positions articulated, stories lending support to hard-left positions aired by the BBC without fear of what names Joe Public will call them. Unlike you, I also want more hard-right positions articulated, stories lending support to hard-right positions aired. The BBC currently fear to do either, but we need them to. The nation is very politically divided and opinionated. The BBC are supposed to represent our interests and inform us. I wish they'd stop playing it safe and actually do that, presenting uncomfortable but truthful programming that hits all over the political spectrum. That, to me, is what we desperately need. No private enterprise will do it, because it's bad business. The unique potential of the BBC is to be a truly bipartisan organisation (rather than what they currently are, a sort of non-partisan Switzerland). The benefit is that people all over the spectrum would still watch (for the stuff they agree with) but they'd be exposed to facts and reporting that challenges their echo chamber assumptions too. I dunno, maybe it'd just result in everyone stopping watching the BBC, but I like the idea of a weird, schizophrenic, bipartisan BBC. Also you have to partially chalk the current popularity of right-wing ideas up to the fact that they aren't debated much in fair and open discussions - just villified by left-wing outlets and pandered to by right-wing ones. The BBC would be a good kinda-neutral space to do that. Part of why I call the service left-biased is because it has a track record of doing the former, presenting right-wing ideas as strawmen in open settings like Newsnight and just beating the shite out of them in a really lowbrow way. More civilized and respectful treatment of right-wing ideas would, in my opinion, actually do more to discredit them and draw people away from blindly buying into them.
I think we're there already. That's not what I see. I see the BBC conscientiously pitting opposing views for "balance", ending up inviting any old right-wing nut to challenge experts on e.g. climate change, social policy, international trade/the EU, as if their point of view had equal validity (this is easy, as media whores like Nigel Farage or Nigel Lawson --come to think of it, what is it with these Nigels? Do they make them in factories?-- are always happy to appear, whereas scientists and other experts usually have a busy day job to get on with). This results in experts trying to painstakingly lay out their evidence-based position in the 30 seconds speakers are allowed, only for them to be casually swiped off the table by a populist rhetorical (often ad hominem) soundbite by the right-wing nut. Because such soundbites are easier to express and grasp in 30 seconds, they usually get the upper hand, and the BBC interviewer does nothing to challenge them by pointing out that their retort in fact did not answer the question, and has no evidence base. It's not a lack of balance that's the issue; the whole format is wrong.
Have to agree, it's one of the fundamental flaws with things like twitter too. Sure, everyone can have an opinion but equal weight and airtime should not be given to a "well I heard..." view as a "after painstaking evidence based research we conclude..." approach. They are not equal but the impression is often given that they are.
Can't disagree with any of that. The balanced bipartisan service of my dreams would only exist and work if a) people's attention spans drastically improved and b) the entire debate culture and speaker selection process were rebuilt from the ground up - ideally, modelled on the long-winded academic TV debates of the 70s. (Yes it was before I was born. I've seen it on Youtube.) Gosh, in fact, I think I just found one sense in which I'm a conservative...
Thinking about it, a better format would be to give each side a 5-minute slot in which they can do a TED-style presentation, with slides if they want, and obligatory citation of source material (references published on the BBC website). This is something that experts are very good at, and makes populists have to work for a living. "What is your evidence base for that assertion?" should be a standard question.
Pleased the EMA have re-okayed the AZ jab, I just hope Macron's political gobshitery due to fear of Le Pen hasn't spread too much doubt in its uptake. As a sidenote, the previous suspension by some countries and the continued use by others highlights the fact that independent sovereign nations within the EU could decide what they wanted to do on their own. Funny that, don't see the Mail et al pointing it out.
Round 1 of AZ complete this morning, paracetamol at the ready. See what happens early evening, as the side effects seem to take a few hours to arrive.
Thanks, that's what happened on Tuesday with SWMBO. I've taken 2 paracetamol with lunch. She had it at lunchtime, and was bullish when I arrived home from work at 6, but by 8pm she had gone downhill badly. Next day in bed, back to work on Thurs feeling 90%.
Your new mutant superpowers won't start to manifest until you have some sort of acute stressful life event. I mean, everybody knows that...
So what's the deal with the EU and vaccine exports??? All I can make out (rightly or wrongly) is that the EU were slow out of the starting block with the vaccines, they are now facing up to that and are trying to bully AZ/ the UK?
I mean they have exported millions of doses out of the EU, the UK none AFAIK, but it's really not a good look. They say AZ aren't living up to their contract and the Commission is under pressure from the EU countries because the rollout has been crap. I mean AZ is a UK/Swedish company and yet the false scaremongering means jabs they do have are sitting on shelves because people don't want them - that"s why this move seems even more ill judged. Would we do any different? Probably not, but it wouldn't be right.
It's a bit of a cluster****. The EU (well Macron et al.) led the scaremongering of a proven vaccine, this being after they had already been slow and inept in developing a vaccination and procurement Programme The EU are now trying to play catchup - and push the blame elsewhere. Turns out there was a benefit to the UK from Brexit, our vaccine rollout, about the only benefit mind you.
And for what it's worth, I think Macron would've been an arsehole about all this whether or not we left the EU. It's just the French generally, they have a chip on their shoulders about us. As soon as we developed a vaccine ahead of them it was always doomed to be dramabombs all round, I'm sure he's just poo-pooing the vaccine to spite us. (Source: half-French, have spent more time than I'd like in France, being treated with automatic contempt by French people.)
Meanwhile in Norway... A Norwegian travel agency is offering trips to a Moscow airport to get vaccinated there for 1500 Euros. Sauce in German, sorry: https://abouttravel.ch/reisebranche/norweger-lancieren-guenstige-covid-impfreisen/
The UK pretty much has a chip on its shoulder about the French, too. I guess neither side quite got past the reign of Charles I.
My 78yr old mum is now in hospital with Covid. Absolutely gutted and I feel like a spare part not being able to help or even visit her. After we lost my dad, I made a promise to look after her to my late dad and this is the first time I actually can't. We spoke to the consultant today, she is breathing unassisted and so far her lungs are clear. It's early days though but at the moment they are optimistic. Her potassium and magnesium levels are really low so they are dealing with that. Been told her condition could change quickly and they've told me what to expect should she go into critical care. She tested positive from a test taken on Monday and was admitted into hospital yesterday. To anyone who has any doubt whatsoever about the legitimacy of Covid and the risks it presents, I now have 4 family members with Covid. Two nieces and a grandniece, plus my mum. Thankfully my nieces and grandniece are doing OK, they have flu like symptoms but are improving. I urge anyone to take the risks seriously, take all necessary precautions and to seriously think about you, your immediate family and your extended family and friends. If you don't, you become part of the problem for those who did and are taking precautions but through sheer bad luck have still copped for it. I swear to God, let just one person spout crap about Covid, the lockdown or vaccine to my face and I will be parting their head from their shoulders and shoving it where the sun doesn't shine. That's exactly how I feel right now.
