I can see that 'first dose first' might be the best strategy for now. As the article suggests, it is better for cars to have one headlight, than that some have two and others none (but note, we're a LONG way away from having all cars with one headlight). 2/
The article references two dangers - vaccine resistance and trust. It also rightly says that more evidence is needed (and the studies are underway). 3/
We are in a position where we have to make the best of what we have. If we insist that all those who have had one dose have their second dose within a short time period, that will mean that others will find that their first dose is delayed. 4/
But... that will always be true.
The Govt remains committed to giving second doses of the vaccine, not within three weeks as at the start, but now within three months (this was repeated by Matt Hancock today on #Marr). 5/
That means that, not now, but around the end of Feb, the focus will shift away from first doses to second doses. We will soon reach the point where (if the 12 week target is to be met) the rate of new first-dose vaccinations will slow dramatically. 6/
Most of the most vulnerable and priority groups will have been vaccinated once, and will be set to be vaccinated again. But, many others, including those who work in essential services, will, by that stage, not have had their first dose. 7/
Why, at that point, will it not be better to keep adding to the number of cars with one headlight, and will it instead become the right thing to do to start fitting some cars with a second headlight? 8/
I assume that much will depend on the continuing efficacy of the single dose of the vaccine (and on a hope for ever-increasing capacity to vaccinate). 9/
If it continues to offer strong levels of protection at that point, why focus one's attention on second doses (at the expense of more first doses)?
If it does not, the whole process will be much slower than many hope. 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
An (almost certainly unnecessary) addition to the long list of slightly strained Brexit analogies, this time featuring Fred Flintstone's car. 1/6
Over many years, the EU member states built the single market, in order to remove not only tariffs and customs within Europe, but also a range of other technical barriers to trade (so-called non-tariff barriers). 2/ 6
One can imagine the trade relationship between the states as a car, with an engine, which needs careful maintenance. 3/6
Back to the UK. The last week has seen (at least) four interventions by political heavyweights/grandees. What they say is interesting, as is how they choose to say it. 1/6
First, Tony Blair, or rather the Tony Blair Institute. It aims to save Britain from decline. 2/6 institute.global/tony-blair/ton…
Second, Theresa May. Her theme is not dissimilar to Blair's. But the tone is rather different. 3/6 dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…
One positive which seems to be emerging from the US today is that many (by no means all) Republicans and Republican supporters are turning against Trump.
Without the strong support of his party/base, he is immeasurably weakened, and the threat he poses recedes.
BUT... 1/7
What does that mean for those who have consistently opposed Trump? And, to bring the debate to the UK, what might it mean for those who are opposing Johnson and his attacks on the UK's constitution? 2/7
Trump/Johnson supporters do not seem willing or able to listen to the warnings of the opposition. More than that, they seek to present the opposition as the 'true' threat to democracy. 3/7
First, we are indeed in the realms *not* of the UK having 'membership' of the single market, but instead of it only having an FTA. If there's a deal, the differences will become obvious very soon. 2/7
Second, it is also right to say that the 'threat' from the UK, armed with an FTA, to the integrity of the single market, isn't that great, and also that the level-playing field isn't as level as all that. 3/7
10 mins in front of the news was enough to drive me to intense frustration.
The Tory party 'line to take' today is that the unbridgeable divide is the result of the failure of the EU to recognise that the UK is an independent sovereign state.
It is nonsense. THREAD. 1/11
Brexit involves the UK making a sovereign decision to leave the EU. And, in January 2020 the UK duly left the EU. 2/11
As a member of the EU, the UK was part of the single market. The single market is a complex web of rules and presumptions which seeks to eliminate trade barriers between the EU member states. 3/11
There are a lot of Brexiters in the media this week making points about sovereignty, and about how the EU has not come to terms with the UK's independence.
I have some questions, which it might well be fruitful to ask them. 1/9
1. How do you understand the concept of sovereignty? What are the circumstances in which you might agree to make binding commitments to other independent states or trading blocs? 2/
2. What sort of commitments are you prepared to make in order to get trade deals with other states/blocs? And, to what end (why not trade on Australian-style terms with the wider world)? 3/