aintforever

If these problems turn out to be more than just teething issues I don’t think you could rule out a rejoin ticket winning the next election. Brexit is a toxic issue at the moment but 2024 is a long way off, if it continues as it is people will soon turn.

Brilliant.

Tampons are cheaper and passports are blue.

The list of key workers is long so they probably are, our little one’s school is about half full so to say they are closed is a bit of a stretch. We qualify but pulled her out anyway because we were concerned about the new strain and the class size. Trying to work and home school is hard work though, will probably send her back if the numbers come down enough.

To be fair to Rees Mogg, our fish will be much happier if all the fishermen go bust.

I thought Trump boasted about defeating ISIS in Syria?

Think the Village Idiot has been injecting bleach again.

I see what you mean but it’s not completely irrelevant, it’s one of the reasons why only one of the parents need to be a key worker for the child to get a place.

Of course it doesn’t, your job does.

No, you can be classed as a critical worker and still work from home.

You can be a key worker and work from home.

Agree that, thanks to the vaccine, deaths will drop sharply at some point but isn't there a 3 week delay before they take effect, so add that to the time it takes to get them done and it may be a while yet.

"A Democrat Hoax - It will just go away - Don't wear face masks - How about we try injecting bleach" Only the Village Idiot would think Trump handled Covid well.

And the vaccine was funded in part by the EU: https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-horizon-2020-2021-1-biontech-chief-eu-r-d-funds-helped-develop-covid-19-vaccine/

here's another article, the heading is pretty clear so you don't have to worry about any long words in the article... https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-brexit-did-not-speed-up-uk-vaccine-authorisation

Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012 The facts behind this story lie with regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012. Until the Brexit transition period ends on 31 December, vaccines in the UK are supposed to be authorised via the European Medicines Agency (EMA). However, since 2012, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been free, under regulation 174, to give temporary approval to an unlicensed medicinal product in the case of certain types of public health threat, such as a pandemic. When the MHRA approved the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine for use in the UK on 2 December, the government press release accompanying this announcement made clear that approval was given under regulation 174. The government has previously said that “if a suitable Covid-19 vaccine candidate, with strong supporting evidence of safety, quality and effectiveness from clinical trials becomes available before the end of the transition period, EU legislation which we have implemented via regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations allows the MHRA to temporarily authorise the supply of a medicine or vaccine, based on public health need.” This is clear that using regulation 174 is implementing EU legislation.

"none of these successes can be chalked up to Brexit. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). [1] This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones. Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them." The village idiot talking shite as usual.

We've got cheaper tampons though, stop fucking moaning.

I think we reach herd immunity at around 60% so hopefully with the vulnerable all vaccinated there could maybe be a chance of some sort of normality by summer. i guess the biggest issue is the fact that i5 is a global problem so until everywhere is vaccinated it’s still going to be an issue, especially with new variants appearing all the time.

I'm not sure it matters what it is called to the people on the receiving end of the attacks. https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-hate-crimes-against-chinese-people-soar-in-uk-during-covid-19-crisis-11979388

Both sides ridicule, abuse and look down on each other - that's politics in 2021, I'm not sure how that excuses making up stories about election fraud or storming the Capitol.

Get a grown up to read it for you if you don't understand it. I've had my fill of home schooling today already.

I wouldn't say calling it the 'Chinese Virus" was necessarily racist but it is definitely something a racist arsehole would say (eg Trump). The difference is that Covid already has a name that distinguishes it from other viruses, it makes sense to call a variant by it's location to distinguish it from other variants of Covid. I'm not sure there is any logical reason to change Covid to Chinese so by changing the name you are purposely highlighting that race/country for your own reason. Given that Chinese people have been victims of racist abuse and attacks because of the Virus, and people are using the name know that, you can understand why it could be considered racist.

The whole impeachment thing seems a bit pointless to me, he could go round raping and murdering and the Republicans won’t vote against him. I guess they have to do something out of principle though, he should be behind bars for what he has done since the election.