The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[Gollom]

Any public figure has to balance not-being-grilled with not-being-seen.

Politicians need to be in the public eye, because exposure (and recognition) helps them get re-elected.

Picking and choosing who you want to be interviewed by, might work when you're in great demand and everyone wants to interview you. But for many politicians, avoiding potentially uncomfortable interviews isn't really a practical choice.

That, and the fact that there will always be the odd narcissistic megalomaniac who will believe that they can handle the interview and come-up.... err, and win the argument.

Yes, but in the main they are not interviews any longer but grilliings in which the questioner's aim seems to be to try and trip the interviewee up to gain some sort of headline. I have started shouting at the TV!

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Yes, but in the main they are not interviews any longer but grilliings in which the questioner's aim seems to be to try and trip the interviewee up to gain some sort of headline. I have started shouting at the TV!

You’ve just started! Some of us have been doing it for years.

 

[C240Sport97]

We have closed the Trump thread for a reason, please do not continue it here.

Not trying to be inflammatory, but why is Trump off limits?

PS. I did not view the Trump thread

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Not trying to be inflammatory, but why is Trump off limits?

PS. I did not view the Trump thread

Possibly too many bitterly contested views. Half the contributors hate him, while the rest despise him

 

[Gollom]

Not trying to be inflammatory, but why is Trump off limits?

PS. I did not view the Trump thread

I think the comments were also becoming personally hostile to Trump and to some forum members. Disagree with someone by all means and even think he is an idiot, but personal attacks are unacceptable IMHO

 

[KillerHERTZ]

Not trying to be inflammatory, but why is Trump off limits?

PS. I did not view the Trump thread

General forum toxicity rearing its ugly head yet again. - I am amazed people get so worked up and upset over a car forum..!

 

[markjay]

David Davis MP holds a debate on the case for Vitamin D supplements as a means to improve the health of UK citizens in this health crisis. He sites the example of a province of Spain that has seen huge drops in deaths after mitigation strategies using vitamin supplements were introduced. Clinical solutions providing better outcomes, who would have thought.

Interesting to compare this pragmatic common sense approach to health which is preventative in nature to the blind faith we are supposed to show when the healthy are put into lockdown quarantine which will make people ill.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This article sums-up well the current situation in respect of Vitamin D supplements:

Does Vitamin D Deficiency Raise COVID-19 Risk?

This Medical News Quick Uptake examines the debate about a link between vitamin D and COVID-19 risk.

jamanetwork.com

My view is that mitigation is obviously welcome, but on the other hand we can't really expect the Government to jump on any bit of evidence that this or that might work in preventing or treating COVID-19, and start using it.

If they did that, we'll be bombarded by the NHS with dozens of mitigations and interventions from Boot Dual Defence Nasal Spray, through Asprin and anticoagulants drugs, and all the way up to Hydroxychloroquine, Dexamethasone Prednisone, Methylprednisolone, etc.

At current, Remdesivir for example has been approved by the FDA for treatment of COVID-19. But it is still a very difficult situation for the DHSC, where they have to make decisions in a timely manner and can't always wait for the results of peer-reviewed clinical trials to establish efficacy and effectiveness of drugs (which is required, even when the safety aspect is known, as in the case of existing drugs).

The situation is no difference in non-medical interventions, where there's some evidence that this or that (Vitamin D supplements, in this case) might work, it is just not a credible strategy for the DHSC to blindly implement or recommend everything that is flagged-up as a possible prevention.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

General forum toxicity rearing its ugly head yet again. - I am amazed people get so worked up and upset over a car forum..!

I just popped into the Trump thread for the first time to see for myself. “Toxicity” appears to be an understatement for some of the posts towards the end. Well done KH.

 

[ChipChop]

This article sums-up well the current situation in respect of Vitamin D supplements:

Does Vitamin D Deficiency Raise COVID-19 Risk?

This Medical News Quick Uptake examines the debate about a link between vitamin D and COVID-19 risk.

jamanetwork.com

My view is that mitigation is obviously welcome, but on the other hand we can't really expect the Government to jump on any bit of evidence that this or that might work in preventing or treating COVID-19, and start using it.

If they did that, we'll be bombarded by the NHS with dozens of mitigations and interventions from Boot Dual Defence Nasal Spray, through Asprin and anticoagulants drugs, and all the way up to Hydroxychloroquine, Dexamethasone Prednisone, Methylprednisolone, etc.

At current, Remdesivir for example has been approved by the FDA for treatment of COVID-19. But it is still a very difficult situation for the DHSC, where they have to make decisions in a timely manner and can't always wait for the results of peer-reviewed clinical trials to establish efficacy and effectiveness of drugs (which is required, even when the safety aspect is known, as in the case of existing drugs).

The situation is no difference in non-medical interventions, where there's some evidence that this or that (Vitamin D supplements, in this case) might work, it is just not a credible strategy for the DHSC to blindly implement or recommend everything that is flagged-up as a possible prevention.

There is no requirement for clinical trials for the use of Vitamin D in an effort to maintain a healthy immune system. In the same way there is no need for clinical trials when a GP gives face to face advice that a patient should get some exercise or make efforts to expose themselves on occasion to winter sunshine for Vitamin D.

 

[GeeJayW]

There is no requirement for clinical trials for the use of Vitamin D in an effort to maintain a healthy immune system. In the same way there is no need for clinical trials when a GP gives face to face advice that a patient should get some exercise or make efforts to expose themselves on occasion to winter sunshine for Vitamin D.

Tastefully for the latter I hope...

 

[ChipChop]

Tastefully for the latter I hope...

Some doctors have a good bedside manner and some do not.

 

[markjay]

There is no requirement for clinical trials for the use of Vitamin D in an effort to maintain a healthy immune system. In the same way there is no need for clinical trials when a GP gives face to face advice that a patient should get some exercise or make efforts to expose themselves on occasion to winter sunshine for Vitamin D.

I was expanding the subject of mitigations and interventions also to drugs, and my comment regarding clinical trials was specifically in that context.

With regards non-medical interventions (the last paragraph in my original post), clinical trials are obviously not mandatory (though they are welcome), but my point was that the government can't be expected to just go and implement or recommend any 'prevention' that is cited in a medical journal, because there are quite a few of those, and implementing them all without careful consideration will amount to the public simply ignoring it altogether. The fact that David Davies MP read an article that found some evidence from a study in Spain regarding the benefits of Vitamin D supplements, is only one such evidence in a long list.

 

[Nicebutdim]

for the past 6 months i have taken a daily vitamin d tablet. They are dirt cheap and if they give me an edge when it comes to a better outcome and covid then all the better. In any case the benefits of taking vitamin D, during the dark winter months, are well documented.

 

[Dryce]

There is no requirement for clinical trials for the use of Vitamin D in an effort to maintain a healthy immune system

Which is one of the reasons there are so many fads.

Basically if I eat, drink, and breathe it helps the normal function of my immune system.

If I was an advertiser then I could concoct a statement that breathing in some Covid 19 particles "can involve the normal function of the immune system".

 

[Petrol Pete]

We have closed the Trump thread for a reason, please do not continue it here.

Well done. It's about time.

 

[st13phil]

I couldn't help but smile at this story yesterday:

UK and EU in row over bloc's diplomatic status

The EU's top representative in London is not being given the same privileges as other ambassadors.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Dryce]

I couldn't help but smile at this story yesterday:

UK and EU in row over bloc's diplomatic status

The EU's top representative in London is not being given the same privileges as other ambassadors.

www.bbc.co.uk

There was story about this early last year - it was unclear then what the issue was - whether it was one of principle or precedence or convention.

My feeling is that if the EU is representing itself diplomatically as single bloc then in principle they should dispense with the individual embassies of the nation states - perhaps enlarge their delegation to compensate and provide notional departments to handle the indidvidual member nations' interests.

OTOH I can see why member states and those outside the EU dealing with them might not want that. (As an example the UK and the Republic of Ireland). I can also see why nations like France and Spain might well want to operate independently in the diplomatic arena - even if that is in a sense against the long term ethos of the EU project.

 

[markjay]

I have no opinion on the matter, but just to point-out that there are examples where representatives of organisations that are not Sovereign states have been granted partial or full diplomatic immunity, two that come to mind are representatives of the UN and the PLO. So granting diplomatic immunity to EU officials is certainly within the realm of possibilities. That's said, it is obviously at the discretion of HMG.

EDIT: This might be a simple case of 'we're not giving something for nothing' - I.e. diplomatic immunity will eventually be granted against other concessions from the EU, as part of the on-going give-and-take negotiations that will be the essence of our relationship with the EU in years to come.

 

[st13phil]

There was story about this early last year - it was unclear then what the issue was - whether it was one of principle or precedence or convention.

My feeling is that if the EU is representing itself diplomatically as single bloc then in principle they should dispense with the individual embassies of the nation states - perhaps enlarge their delegation to compensate and provide notional departments to handle the indidvidual member nations' interests.

OTOH I can see why member states and those outside the EU dealing with them might not want that. (As an example the UK and the Republic of Ireland). I can also see why nations like France and Spain might well want to operate independently in the diplomatic arena - even if that is in a sense against the long term ethos of the EU project.

That is exactly why it raised a smile.

It may sound petty, but it has shone a bright light on something the EU has preferred to keep in the dark. Nation States are granted diplomatic privileges, not international organisations - for sound reasons that don't take much effort to work out.

The EU tries to hide its federalist ambitions, and indeed many on the remain side of Brexit went to great lengths to deny that the EU was either federalist in nature or ambition. So it must be an international organisation, then? Well, err, no, not according to the perpetually-offended-by-Britain Michel Barnier who said yesterday, “I know the spin, and sometimes more than the spin, of the UK authorities speaking about the EU like an international organisation, but we are not an international organisation”. So what are they then? Schrödinger's Federation?

 

[m80]

I couldn't help but smile at this story yesterday:

UK and EU in row over bloc's diplomatic status

The EU's top representative in London is not being given the same privileges as other ambassadors.

www.bbc.co.uk

If the eu are there to represent all the constituent members there is no need for those individual members to independently represent themselves in the UK.

It can only serve to complicate and confuse any negotiations of any type.