So what if we’re paying a bit more for vaccines to AZ? (All of which is dwarfed by the costs of lockdown by the way). Given they’re doing it not-for-profit, the worst is that this represents a contribution to global vaccine delivery, in particular to poorer countries who rely so heavily on AZ. If we paid a bit more to Pfizer, I’m similarly not fussed, as the higher cost was well worth it to secure them sooner. I’m not here to discuss other elements of the government’s pandemic response (I’ve got better things to do). I was specifically calling out misrepresentations about the vaccine roll out because it’s something I know a lot about.
There are some great contradictions here. Vaccines can't simultaneously be at no profit, but then be paid at in excess of cost. Just like we can't both be looking after our own needs first, while also being philanthropic to the world.
I think you’re assuming there is only one figure for ‘cost’? AZ has categorically said they are not going to make a profit, so everything we’ve paid has gone into vaccine manufacturing and delivery and is not above cost (which would be profit for AZ). However, the cost of the first X million vaccines, which would include much of the development spend, is greater than the cost of subsequent vaccines once operations are established. There’s one difference, as well as geographic variations. My point is that if we’ve paid more than other countries, that’s not gone into AZ’s profit, it will have benefitted everyone else. However, we had to pay more because the cost of those vaccines was initially higher absent co-investment from other countries. The primary aim was not philanthropy, but investing in vaccine infrastructure benefits more than just ourselves. Win win.
Fundamentally disagree all you like. I may not be making my points clear enough and thus you aren’t understanding, but I can’t help with condescending comments such as that. Good chatting.
Nothing condescending in that exchange until you just replied to me. Your view is true to you, my view is true to me. Bizarre response, but hey ho.
Truth is a state of actuality or fact, and thus there is only “the truth”. In my opinion, to tell someone it’s “their truth” is to insinuate it’s only true in their own little world and is therefore condescending. If it wasn’t meant in a condescending manner then I apologise if you took offence.
It wasn't intended as such, merely we had different views, I wasn't inferring you were telling untruths, not at all. Just that we're interpreting things differently from all the information we have at our disposal. No need to apologise. I took no offence from it.
Huge philosophical point to be discussed ad Infinitum here, but that’s simply not a fact. Note I didn’t say ‘isn’t true’. Your truth is based on facts as you observe them, and are coloured by your life experience, conscious and unconscious bias. My truth is similarly coloured. The reason we don’t rely simply on an accusation to find someone guilty. It doesn’t matter how much a witness thinks what they’re saying is ‘true’, it may be far from the actual facts of what happened. A judge and jury will decide what they believe to be the truth of a case, but even then, down the line, more facts can be made available and that can be proved to have been incorrect. And that’s without the philosophical side of the discussion, which I know bugger all about.
Gethin Jones is the best footballer who has ever lived. This is the truth, the one and only truth, and if you can't see it, you frankly know nowt about football - or anything else. It is actuality, and fact.
Bang on! Add to that the fact that they only call it the Delta variant as opposed to Indian to disguise their failure to learn the lesson of leaving to the door open to incoming Chinese flights at the beginning of the emergency. Delta doesn't remind the public of the massive **** up they've just repeated, where Indian might just do.
Certainly agree that we should have been far more controlling on international travel - however, it is WHO that named the variants after Greek letters - and the cases that first landed on our shores were largely from UK citizens returning from their skiing holidays in Italy. Perhaps we should have stopped people leaving and going on holiday ...
Surely the reason we don’t simply rely on an accusation to find someone guilty is because of the possibility that, despite swearing not to do so, they have chosen to lie? I accept that individuals will have different recollections of a series of events. However, I believe that represents “their recollection” and not “their truth”. That recollection needs to be proven to be “the truth”, which, based on the Merriam-Webster definition, is: (1): the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (2): the state of being the case : FACT Thus, based on this definition at least, I do not see how there can be two truths (just two recollections, interpretations etc.). Ultimately it’s just semantics, but I’ve seen “my truth”, “their truth” etc. being used increasingly over the last couple of years (mainly on social media) to give greater weight to ultimately what is just an opinion, on the basis that a truth is already proven and thus more difficult to challenge. It is a much more powerful word than opinion, and given we already have words for “opinion”, “view”, “recollection”, “interpretation” etc, I think it is disingenuous to appropriate the word “truth” to mean the same thing.
Most people plan weddings at least 12 months in advance, so most people scheduled to get married now, either planned it a year ago or planned it the year before and have re-booked after having it cancelled. No one planned last year to go to Ritzy on Saturday night.
But you were both telling ‘the truth to the best of your knowledge’, rather than the the whole truth, as neither of you are in possession of all the facts.
This again, we dont restrict the whole country because some have symptoms that arent nice. Goalposts forever changinv
