robfay.bsky.social
@robfay.bsky.social
24 followers 29 following 29 posts
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
I work in a Physics department, and despite not being a physicist myself, I regularly get emails from people who've chosen the path of ruin, trying to convince me to stop suppressing their insight. It's a real thing.
I honestly can't understand how the benefits from reducing the risk of illness to visitors, carers, and the cared for aren't apparent. Not everyone can afford a private vaccination.

By the way, are you the Lyndsay McAteer from the Green Party in Warrington? I'm a member, but not a very active one.
Right? Just one prevented hospitalisation pays for a lot of vaccinations, not to mention the cost of potentially severe illnesses outside of that, and long-term impacts on health. It's baffling.
Even allowing for the absolute risk reductions being small (as baseline severity has decreased, presumably due to prior vaccinations and infections), that relative risk reduction is still significant, given the potentially serious consequences. But most people will have to pay for it in the UK. 3/3
UK limits on who can get NHS-provided covid vaccines are really strict now; you have to be over 75, or immunocompromised (from a condition/treatment on a list), or be in a care home. It doesn't include those people's carers. Meanwhile, studies continue to show the effectiveness of the vaccine. 1/3
(UK) “It’s really bad, I won’t lie to you” is what the pharmacist told me as she had to deny me the covid vaccine. I got the flu one, no problem. A 74 year old got denied bcs he isn’t 75, so he said he’ll do it next year bcs he cannot afford to pay for private. It’s really bad. 1/4
Their risk of developing long COVID is significant. It's definitely not "very low".
I think it's fair to paraphrase that particular quote as being directed towards black women in general, since it was inherently directed at those particular women BECAUSE they're black women.
Honestly, if Labour think they can defeat Reform by pandering to every demagogic talking point, they could just jump to the logical conclusion; defect to Reform, form a Reform government now, and just be Reform themselves.

What they're doing at the moment isn't really any less absurd than that.
Wonder how many of those families are also being penalised because their housing is considered to have a 'spare room'. The bedroom tax is still a thing too, but people seem to have forgotten about that one.
Just read it, that's a great article. And I think reading it from a 2025 perspective shows both how long it's taken to push this framing to where it is, and also underlines that the approaches taken to countering it over that time have clearly not been effective.
You're right, it is after years of manipulation. Farage et al got us here by talking about it for decades, when it *wasn't* polling as as mattering.

We won't get away from it by pandering to it. People need to talk about what *actually* matters most. That's what shifts the polls.
"Following to fascism" was an example, Hence the "e.g." But for the record, following someone to scapegoating and demonising refugees and migrants is also a bad idea.

And I obviously think Farage should be taken on. I also think pandering to his demagoguery isn't the way to do that.
*Sometimes* you have to go to where people are. *Sometimes* you have to try to get the people to go somewhere else.

E.g. if the people have already followed someone to fascism, going to where they are is a really bad idea.

Also, "addressing Brexit" does not equate to "wanking on about it".
The "won the argument in the sense the UK did it" part was referring to that in the sense the post you replied to did, the latter part was expanding on your own. Thought that was clear from context, sorry if it wasn't!
The alternative "ignore it and let's all keep being wrong together so we don't sound like we're saying some of us were right all along" strategy doesn't seem to be going too well to be honest.
It's more that it's an elephant in the room in terms of the future of the country and its relationship with the rest of the world, Ignoring the elephant, and who put it there, doesn't seem like the best strategy.
Yes, I'm agreeing with you. Hence why my reply started with "yes".
Yes, he 'won the argument' in the sense that the UK did it, but he didn't 'win the argument' in the sense that he argued it would be a good thing. Making it clear he lost *that* argument might help.
Sad to see the Guardian (and others) making the mistake of treating this as more than a minor news story again. "Stupid Man has Stupid Plan" (and the article undermines the stupidity of it) is not the most important thing in the news. But headlining with it gives the impression it is.
The context was someone asking which 20th century figure would be best to deal with "this problem", where grok identified the "problem" as people with Jewish sounding surnames posting "anti-white hate". Grok chose Hitler because he'd "spot the pattern".

So no, the context doesn't make it better.
I don't understand it logically either. It's like the "Controls on Immigration" mug from their 2015 election campaign. Which they lost. How can pandering to another party's demagoguery ever not be a losing strategy? It boosts the other party's core framing, and loses votes from people who oppose it.
As it is, when Labour next ask for votes, it seems like I'll be calling you demanding and freely giving my vote to another party.
You're portraying a heartfelt request as demanding to imply it isn't reasonable so you can ignore it. But it is reasonable. That shows zero empathy and the opposite of solidarity. It badly damages your credibility. I hope you take the comments to heart and reflect on what you're doing.