Weston Super Saint

They don't, the discussions will continue! Just look at MMR where there was a backlash about 10-15 years ago with people refusing to immunise their kids. Hey presto this was followed by measles outbreaks! People are stupid. Isn't it best to start from that assumption and plan for the worst?

Yep. I'll be way down on the list though, so probably between Easter and summer for me. Why wouldn't I take it?

Even assuming that all of those groups are completely seperate from one another and would have their own 'stand alone' circle in a venn diagram, that would still leave 67% of the population that would be vaccinated and immunised. Given that herd immunity is expected to happen when between 60 and 70% of the population have antibodies, that will eventually see the virus 'die out' based on your figures. Not only that, the percentages you've given don't take into account people that have already been infected - some of them will have natural antibodies and will statistically have to sit within the 10% that can't take the vaccine and the additional 10% for whom the vaccine doesn't work as well as the (potential) 20% of anti vaxers. Which would of course increase the 67% of immune people who are vaccinated.....

Looks like good news for this group... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55022288

Looks like CoVid is coming their way, doesn't it? What demographic do they sit in - will tell you how much of a risk it will be when they catch it - if they haven't already....

So in your scenario, a person who is deemed to be a far lesser risk (because they are waiting longer for the vaccine than someone who has declined theirs) is going to catch it from someone who is a higher risk and likely to be in hospital anyway! But I do get your point that there is a miniscule risk that what you describe could happen, but only until the vaccine program is finished - 6 months? 12 months? - after that it will only be refusers infecting refusers...

You appreciate that argument doesn't work when it comes to refusing the vaccine don't you? The only people who are going to catch the virus (and potentially die) in your scenario are people who have also refused to have the vaccine. Kind of a circular argument really.

Sarcasm escaped you once again soggy

That sounds like a very simplistic plan. Should also be applied to benefits shouldn't it? After all, it's the 'responsibility' of everyone to "look after themselves and not expect the state to pick up the pieces of their irresponsible behaviour" (like not having a job).

Quantitative easing is a simple answer. You can learn more Here

What about a tweak to your question... Where do people stand on having the vaccine if it's a requirement to visit their parents? Surely the vaccine is protection for everyone not just the vaccinated - the same way that masks are supposed to work...

It would be disproportianate to increase the taxes of those on minimum / living wage, which let's face it are the majority of workers that make up the two industries that have been hit the hardest during this (retail and hospitality).

That's the spirit, give up if the question is too tricky for you

Amazing! Not one person from our self proclaimed intelligentsia has given a definition for 'persecuted'! Is that because the definition doesn't actually fit with what is happening to Corbyn?

Would it just apply to those that were furloughed, so those of us that continued to work wouldn't have to pay?? What about those that were furloughed but then lost their jobs, do they have to pay?

Not really sure what your argument is meant to be, but these bits of your post seem like a pretty good reason why you wouldn't want to be tied to a protectionist economy and would be happy to forge your own trading relationships with the rest of the world.

FG2H were the ultimate winners anyway as I seem to recall their shit song was number one for weeks! No such thing as bad publicity 😉

Nah, 'Relax' was a shit song. Banning it did everyone a favour.

Black Fridays matter as well you know.

Rooney and Vardy in the High Court - I always assumed the High Court was for important legal matters.

Define 'persecuted'.

More than the claim that Corbyn is being 'persecuted'... The Christians were persecuted by the Romans. Jews were persecuted by the Nazis. Corbyn is being punished for being a cock. Starmer is making an example of him for sure, but that's not persecution!

His 'behaviour' and his inability to control the party have only come to light since he was replaced as the leader. I argue he was suspended - and subsequently not handed back the 'whip' on this basis. That does not constitute 'persecution' (even though politics are in play), but it's more akin to the punishment a traditional employee would receive in an equivalent position - basically being sacked...

No. I'm claiming he's being excluded from the Labour party for being anti Semitic. He's not being 'persecuted' as his supporters claim and is suffering the same way that every other employee would suffer if they held the same abhorrent views. To claim he is being 'persecuted' and liken what he is rightly going through is another abhorrent statement from his supporters and belittles the actual 'persuction' that the Jews suffered. I'm sure as an ardent supporter of the vile creature, that has passed you by though.

Err, I've suggested the 'words' don't work from the beginning. Note the 's' on the end of word... It was FTF that claimed a different 'word' should be used so go argue your semantics with him.. I then gave alternatives when you asked for them. All of those alternatives would work if you changed the 'strange choice of words' as I previously pointed out...