D
durhamplumber
Lmao...Durham is a bit ruff
Teachers getting the vaccine....more important workers than them should get it first.
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Communists don't have it, so don't you worry about it.
Ok, one more time; I didn't say I disagreed with world vaccination and I said nothing about the WHO or its vaccination strategy. You randomly introduced that in response to my post.
To save you going back, (but please do if you still aren't sure) what I mocked were airheads volunteering to donate their vaccine to the 'poor' people in 'poor' countries. Not in fact virtuous at all but empty virtue-signalling to let us know how good they are and leave us wondering how we too might ascend to the moral high ground. If you look back you will also see that I mocked the fact that these same people, within minutes, were bickering about why they should be next on the list to receive the vaccine. Slightly ironic, don't you think? I don't apologies for this, these people get everything they deserve.
I hope you'll move on now or debate the actual subject, which I'm more than happy (and interested) to do.
Sponsored Links
Are you up for giving your reasons. Is it a case of waiting or do you think you'll never have a jab? No argument here, we all have our views on these things.
PS, agree on the VAX, but the last Dyson wasn't too great so moved on to Gtech now.
His whole post was a joke.
Leaders have a duty to put the people that voted for them first. That is their moral duty.
There is a moral question in regards to the wealthiest countries buying all the vaccines early on and getting their populations vaccinated first but that has to be balanced with the fact it's the richest countries that have been able to throw money at vaccine development and manufacture.
The rich countries do have a moral duty to ensure the poor countries get vaccinated as soon as possible.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
I think your recollection of the comments is rather selective.
Quite clearly, you posted part of my comment (reprinted above) and appeared to offer absurdity as a way of dismissing my suggestion.
You doubled down on this by confirming your opinion that my post was equally absurd. You only backtracked on this when I pointed out that my post was, in effect, an explanation of the WHO strategy.
Only now are you distancing yourself from your remarks about my comments and hoping to provide emphasis on the other part of your comment.
I'm more than happy to debate the subject. But if anyone refuses to discuss it on a rational basis, and resorts to trying to dismiss it with absurdity, then unsurprisingly I'll take issue with that approach.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Theoretically, yes, a government's first responsibility is primarily to the protection of its citizens, not only to those that voted for them, that's perverse, and immoral.
I'm assuming that was a genuine mistake or an intentional and provocative metaphorical 'red rag'.
It's the 'how' that is achieved that is debatable.
A strategy of creating an 'island' of protected people, in denial of others' need, is not a sensible strategy. Sometimes sacrifices are required for the greater good of mankind
Imagine the situation that a world war rages, and some countries refuse to become embroiled because their citizens are not in danger.
Sometimes the longer perspective is required to form a better, more coherent, more moral strategy.
Imo, it is indisputable that the current UK government has only made one apparently, right and sensible decision during this pandemic.
But seen in a greater context, it does not look such a right and sensible decision. For sure, it was plucking the low hanging fruit, a popular strategy, an relative easily achievable ambition, a resounding success and an achievement to satisfy the desperately needed popularity. It even appears that the vaccination strategy is reaping rewards.
Let's hope that it remains as such.
Yet it is not the vaccination strategy that is providing the reduction in infections, deaths, etc, it is the lockdown strategy. Imagine if this lockdown strategy had been initiated in the run up to Xmas, if the isolation of arrivals had been initiated this time last year, etc.
Finally, I think it's more than amoral duty to vaccinate poorer countries as soon as possible, I think it's a sensible, long term strategy to vaccinate the high risk categories around the world equally, to reduce deaths equally around the world.
But, by the same token, I think it befalls each and everyone to assess their own need, and if/where necessary to be prepared to give up one's place in the metaphorical queue to someone else in greater need.
For example, we're entitled to a vaccine both in the UK and in France due to our age, we both have some health issues (as you might expect at our age) which would also suggest further need, but as we're content, partly isolated, currently in good health, practising some isolation as required and appropriate, we're quite happy to wait until others with greater need have been vaccinated.
Last edited:
D
durhamplumber
Very pretty ..tiz you calling places shtholes.not me..ya great tìt
D
durhamplumber
No idea where that is.producing random pics proves nothing.
D
durhamplumber
"Beat people to death" says it all really about you.
I never said "people".
Again, they are not people. People don't go around beating pensioners.
D
durhamplumber
Yes they are
Sponsored Links
