Covid-19 and vaccines: what we know and what we don't know

 

When it comes to vaccination, it is self-evident that not everybody reacts in the same way. On the one hand, vaccines are different. Using as an example one AstraZeneca vaccine and one Pfizer vaccine (I say 'one' because laboratories are already working on newer versions of existing vaccines due to the fact that the virus keeps mutating), the strategies to build immunity are different.

On the other hand, each individual to be vaccinated has specific characteristics that make him or her more or less vulnerable to reactions and secondary effects. 

Therefore, when faced with infections, we react differentely. When vaccinated, we react differently. Because of all the things that we don't know, we all need as much reassurance as possible to make the right decisions. 

One particular scenario has to do with the clinical history of an individual. If a given substance can trigger anaphylatic reactions - for example - then giving such substance to an individual that has a history of allergies and anaphylatic reactions cannot be without understanding the potential of serious or even lethal effects.

We hear descriptions of different variants of the same virus. We hear about the level of transmision, and virulence. He hear about the number of those seriously ill and we hear about the number of deaths. This is all about statistics. Statistics are about numbers and percentages, but they do little to reassure us about any particular case. 

Every day, we tune in to hear about decisions being made that affect us all. Nobody can avoid being affected either by the immediate realities of dealing with Covid-19 or the consequences of the measures put in place to tackle the pandemic. All the complexities of the situations created by Covid-19 and the measures implemented to tackle the pandemic come on top of all the problems we had to deal with before the pandemic started. The is uncertainty when it comes to physical health, mental health and financial health. 

There was life before the pandemic. There is life during the pandemic. There is going to be life after the pandemic. But there are several questions that are extremely relevant. What kind of life is it going to be? how will we behave after the pandemic? How will what is happening now affect our behaviour and our expectations? 

For many of us, including myself, the arrival of Spring followed by Summer doesn't feel the same as before. I used to look forward to the longer hours of dailight that came together with a load of optimism. Nowadays, if feels more like Doomsday. I look at my family and think about their prospects and I feel intense emotional pain.

We have vaccines and there are more vaccines in the horizon to tackle Covid-19 and its variants, but the one vaccine that we don't have is the vaccine against the pain, the suffering and the feelings of loss. I reckon that I am not alone. The pain, the suffering and the feelings of loss are throwing a growing number of people over the edge. A 280% increase of the number of mental health cases was reported. When before we used to talk about rising number of cases of social isolation, now we have to add the number of those who are unable to cope and are losing the will to stay alive.

Something fundamental will have to change. The Rat Race is not the solution. The Rat Race is very much part of the problem. The Rat Race has led to isolation and social dysfunction. We need to learn to live a different life that is not driven by the Rat Race. 

 

Covid-19: Walk. Don't run. We do need a health MOT.

The fact that people are being vaccinated and that more than 15 million people living in the United Kingdom have received the first doses of several vaccines used doesn't change the fact that the NHS is still working over-capacity with many thousands of patients that require special treatment to keep those seriously affected by Covid-19 alive.

We should not be overly pessimistic, but we shouldn't be overly optimistic either. I am fully aware of the damage done to the economy and of the negative repercussions of the quarantine measures put in place to prevent the spread of the disease. Other diseases have gone untreated. The number of those suffering from some form of mental illness has skyrocketted. 

The idea of implementing better coordination of different services within the so called Welfare State could be one of the best ideas being considered. NHS, Social Services, the services that care of old and the disabled, and every other branch of the Welfare State need to work together.

For a very long time, we have cared more about the transit of animals, plants and minerals in and out of the country than about the transit of human beings that can carry diseases with them. For many years, animals brought into the country have gone into quarantine to ensure that they were healthy enough to be allowed in. For far too long, any human being coming from abroad could enter the country freely without any health checks to protect public health. What Covid-19 has done is to prove how foolish we have been. A virus coming from China has killed more than 100,000 people in the United Kingdom. Cars have MOT. Why shouldn't human beings have some form of health MOT to prove that they do not constitute a risk for the rest of the population?

Covid-19 didn't exist in the United Kingdom. It was brought in via ports of entry (Airports, Harbours, Railway Stations). There should have been sanitary controls at each port of entry. The sanitary controls established because of Covid-19 should become the norm and be enforced to prevent any future catastrophe.

 

 

Palestine never existed as a state, but as territories of other states

 

Regardless of the judgement of the International Court of Justice, there never was a State of Palestine. There were territories that belonged to other states that went to war against Israel and having lost wars against Israel they lost part of the lands that they controlled. Talking about war crimes is an idiocy. The said wars happened a long time ago and for decades lands taken from Arab states have been controlled by Israel.

The Organisation of the United Nations has no right to go around telling what can be done or cannot be done. It can only make statements that more often than not are no more than empty words because reality on the ground takes precedence. Any settlement can only be kept or changed by force and force is something that the Organisation of the United Nations doesn't have. Whether the rest of the world likes it or not, the Golan Heights - for example - are part of the State of Israel having belonged in the past to Syria. The sames goes for Gaza and West Bank. In a treaty signed by Israel and Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula was recovered by Egypt. 

Whether the rest of the world accepts Jerusalem as capital of Israel is irrelevant. Who controls Jerusalem? Israel. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that as long as Jerusalem is controlled by Israel and is an integral part of the State of Israel whatever the world says about it will not change an iota. All the talk about Jerusalem being an international city is bollocks.

World history is full of 'this belongs to me and this belongs to you'. Looking at the map of Europe itself, national borders have changed after a series of conflicts. The Europe of Metternich is a clear example. Looking at the map of the Americas much of a similar nature can be said. Much of the south of today's United States are occupied territories. They used to belong to Mexico and to other countries including Spain. The Louisiana was bought from France. 

The Six-Day War was a time of territorial acquisitions for Israel. Egypt, Syria and others waged war against Israel and lost. Their intention had been to wipe out of the recently formed State of Israel. So, they lost. Bad luck. Are they called 'occupied territories' because Syria and others didn't sign a peace treaty with Israel? Well, for all we know, for decades the attackers have not been at war with Israel and this led to a status quo. With peace settlements or without peace settlements, the reality on the ground is that for decades acquired territories have been under Israeli rule and wil presumably be under Israeli rule for the foreseable future.

There is an unhealthy war of words that is not conducive to peaceful coexistence. If the rest of the world were to be treated according to the same standards Israel is measured with, there wouldn't be peace anywhere. European countries would be at war with each other trying to recover 'occupied territories'. Is it about Danzig and Memel or Gdansk? What about huge chunks of Germany given to Poland and others? What about parts of Italy and Austria that are now part of neighboring countries? What about the status of Baltic Republics? Are we going to suddenly start ignoring reality?

I heard a Member of the House of Lords talk about what is happening today in the Soviet Union. Really? Apparently the noble Lord is not aware of the fact that the Soviet Union came to an end in 1991. It is all too good to talk about the UN Plan for the partition of Palestine, but it is useless talk. 

Much of what Western politicians talk via mass media is sheer nonsense when it comes to geopolitics. Just a few days ago, there was a military coup in Myanmar (Burma). Suddenly, we heard them talking about taking action against the military in Burma. They talk as if they owned Burma which, of course, they don't. Burma, apart from being a sovereign nation is a sovereign nation with close ties with China. China and some European countries have huge economic interests in Burma. The UN, the USA, or whoever else, can protest about the status of Muslim minorities in Burma until they become red in the face. Nothing is going to change.

In the meantime, those who pretend to have a say about what is happening elsewhere should pay closer attention to what is actually happening in their own countries. 

 

 

Now Labour wants to follow Britain First

After being routed in its homelands during the 2019 General Election, an election in wich the Conservative Party got a sizeable majority by becoming the party of the white working class (statistically more white working class people voted for the Conservative Party than they voted for the Labour Party), Labour Party Leader Keir Starmer wants his party to use national flags and put on a suit to try and regain the confidence of British voters.

According to him, a posher Labour Party might become a more attractive option, but if this an issue merely of flags and suits and not of real policies the chances are that his approach will not find favour amongst those whose support he needs to turn the tide that has gone against the Labour Party after a series of scandals involving anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and outright fraud. One example is the once popular Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson who fell from grace after being accussed of being involved in a conspiracyu to commit bribery and witnerss intimidation. 

Before Joe Anderson, members of the Labour Party Shadow Cabinet have shown worrying signs of incompetence when Diane Abbott discussed on live radio his options to improve Police services. Something about the amount of money needed to recruit new Police Officers. Emily Thornberry didn't do that well when she publicly acknowledge that she wasn't aware of the names of key political figures in the international arena, people she would have had to deal with if she had been Foreign Secretary.

If anything, the removal of Jeremty Corbyn also helped remove many members of his Shadow Cabinet, but it hasn't helped to improve the Labour Party's standing in terms of competence. 

Having the Labour Party taken  to the courts by its former Leader is not a show of unity. If the party whip is not returned to Jeremy Corbyn, Jeremy Corbynb would be facto not allowed to stand in a General Election for the seat he now represents. And what about Labour Party supporters? During his term in office as party Leader, Jeremy Corbyn managed to increase Labour Party membership. The irony was that Labour Party members liked Jeremy Corbyn as much as the Parliamentary Labour Party disliked Jeremy Corbyn. What happened in the northern seats that used to be represented by Labour MPs might very well have been retaliation by the Labour Party grassroots against the Parliamentary Labour Party that got rid of Jeremy Corbyn.

Using the tactics of the so called Far Right could be for Keir Starmer a fatal mistake. What would the likes of the UAF, Hope Not Hate, Searchlight and others say when they see the Labour Party dressed in Britain First's clothes? For decades the Labour Party tried to convince British voters that Natinonalism was poisonous and that whoever went around with national flags was racist, Fascist and xenophobe. Labour Party authorities literally replaced national flags with European Union flags. After Brexit, they cannot use European Union flags to hide symbols that they actually hate.

Will the Labour Party that actively campaigned against British Nationalism now turn around and say that they are British Nationalists and that they no longer believe what they used to preach by demonising anybody who dared to stand for British Nationalism?