covid-19

[Khendraja'aro]

Shooting the messenger rather than addressing the point Khen?

When the "messenger" is a pathological liar and fundamentally untrustworthy, then, yes. Furthermore, "Die Welt" is an equically despicable paper, just with a tad more civilized paint (one of their lead writers openly caters to Nazi wannabes. Not a joke). It's from the same publisher after all.

Also, do you know the best way to get someone to swallow a lie? Simply state several true things and then add one lie into it. That's how they do it and that's why you should not trust anything those asshats say.

And our chief virologist (Drosten) (who's completely independend from politics) has stated that hindsight is 20/20 and that criticism after the fact in this case is stupid. Published in DER SPIEGEL, by the way.

Of course you can always play the armchair general with what we know now. But, as Drosten said, a true revision of the fact would necessitate look at what we knew then.

But I'm sure that a genius like you knew months in advance which of the more than 20 potential vaccines would be the successful ones?

[RandBlade]

When the "messenger" is a pathological liar and fundamentally untrustworthy, then, yes. Furthermore, "Die Welt" is an equically despicable paper, just with a tad more civilized paint (one of their lead writers openly caters to Nazi wannabes. Not a joke). It's from the same publisher after all.

Also, do you know the best way to get someone to swallow a lie? Simply state several true things and then add one lie into it. That's how they do it and that's why you should not trust anything those asshats say.

And our chief virologist (Drosten) (who's completely independend from politics) has stated that hindsight is 20/20 and that criticism after the fact in this case is stupid. Published in DER SPIEGEL, by the way.

Of course you can always play the armchair general with what we know now. But, as Drosten said, a true revision of the fact would necessitate look at what we knew then.

But I'm sure that a genius like you knew months in advance which of the more than 20 potential vaccines would be the successful ones?

No we didn't know which ones would be successful months in advance.

What we did know though is the pandemic is costing us billions of pounds or euros per week.

Our government backed every leading horse and got orders in early paying early to be at the front of the queue. Not just one queue but almost every queue they could. They didn't back one horse, they backed virtually all of them. It therefore didn't matter which vaccine worked, we would have it.

Buying 40 million doses at £25 each costs £1bn. Given the pandemic is costing billions per week, if we can end the pandemic days, weeks or months earlier then that is money very well spent.

We have hundreds of millions of doses on order. Enough to vaccinate the whole population 5 times each approximately. That won't be needed, once we have vaccinated everyone here we can use the rest for foreign aid to help other countries get over it. Or bin those that don't work but still money well spent.

Fiddling around umming and ahhing while the pandemic rages while trying to save pennies per dose but ending at the back of the queue is really fiddling while Rome burns.

[Khendraja'aro]

We have hundreds of millions of doses on order.

And yet your government still feels the need to delay the 2nd dose massively. Your logic does not square.

I have the statement of an expert in his field about this. And we have an armchair general's (you) opinion about this, who fell for the hateful propaganda of a rag paper.

Guess which one I'll go with.

[RandBlade]

And yet your government still feels the need to delay the 2nd dose massively. Your logic does not square.

Of course it squares. They're not all available today.

It is about getting as many people vaccinated as soon as possible by any means at any cost. It is a value judgement and when the alternative is restrictions costs £6bn per week it is absolutely necessary.

To quibble over which vaccine to buy is a false economy. No hindsight necessary.

[Khendraja'aro]

Of course it squares. They're not all available today.

It is about getting as many people vaccinated as soon as possible by any means at any cost. It is a value judgement and when the alternative is restrictions costs £6bn per week it is absolutely necessary.

To quibble over which vaccine to buy is a false economy. No hindsight necessary.

Yes, because money is the only concern. Jesus. Ever thought about why they're not all available today? I'm sure you'll promptly proceed to pull something out of your ass as well.

Obviously not. Now kindly fuck off, armchair general. You're an economics expert and now you presume to know all about vaccination strategies. Get fucked.

[RandBlade]

Yes, because money is the only concern. Jesus. Ever thought about why they're not all available today? I'm sure you'll promptly proceed to pull something out of your ass as well.

Obviously not. Now kindly fuck off, armchair general. You're an economics expert and now you presume to know all about vaccination strategies. Get fucked.

The strategy being employed is the smartest one. You get fucked you overly defensive ignorant turd.

Why are they not all being available at once, what a dumb question. Not polite to use the r-word anymore but struggling to understand how someone supposedly educated could write something so fucking stupid as "And yet your government still feels the need to delay the 2nd dose massively. Your logic does not square"

I hope you don't teach or need logic if that is your level of objective thought. They're not all available because they're not all licenced, manufactured, bottled and cerified.

Can only use what you have and can only have once you've bought it at the timescale manufactured and certified.

Don't be so bloody moronic you fool.