As infections have surged in Israel in the last few weeks, the Israeli Government reports that the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine against infection has dropped to 64% from 94% the previous month. However, its effectiveness against serious disease is holding up. The Telegraph has more.
The vaccine had a 64% efficacy rate from early June until early July, the latest figures show, down from 94% a month earlier. The decrease coincides with a period in which the government reversed coronavirus restrictions and the delta variant spread through the country.
But the vaccine is still conferring strong protection against severe symptoms of the virus, with hospitalisation rates remaining low. The ministry’s data shows the vaccine’s efficacy in preventing hospitalisation was 93% from June 6th to July 3rd, compared to a 98% rate in the previous period.
On Monday, Israel reported the highest rate of new infections since the start of its most recent outbreaks, with the ministry recording 343 new cases over the past 24 hours.
Over half (55%) of the new infections are in fully vaccinated people, according to recent data. Since the country has fully vaccinated about 60% of the population, this suggests the vaccine is not protecting from infection very much at all (less even than the new stated efficacy figure of 64%). This is particularly so given that most of the infections are likely to be in socially and economically active younger people (like they are in the U.K.) who have lower vaccination rates, so that the vaccinated may even be suffering disproportionately more infections than the unvaccinated (the data is currently unavailable to confirm this).
The pattern of outbreaks in highly vaccinated countries such as Bahrain, Seychelles, Maldives and Chile and the fact that the vaccines don’t produce mucosal IgA antibodies has suggested for a while that their effectiveness against infection may have been exaggerated in studies. The idea that the IgG antibodies they produce in the blood should protect against progression to serious illness makes more sense and it is reassuring to see this data holding up.
The Israeli Government is now discussing the need for a third booster shot, and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has said people will “likely” need a third dose within 12 months of getting “fully vaccinated”. The Government may also consider limiting gathering sizes and reintroducing the controversial “Green Pass” vaccine apartheid system.
However, if a highly vaccinated country like Israel cannot return to normal without constant threat of new restrictions you have to wonder if anyone can. At some point leaders will need to accept that they have done all they can to guard the vulnerable against serious illness and death and remember that there is more to life than avoiding COVID-19.
Stop Press: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is now investigating the death of a 13 year-old American boy who died a few days after receiving his second dose of the Pfizer Covid vaccine.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I can only imagine that kemp was one of those who gets promoted to get him out of the way. He really is not very bright is he?
Claiming NATO is some sort of Tree Hugger organisation is ludicrous. NATO was complicit in the illegal murder of Gadhafi and the overthrow of Libya. It has missiles all over Europe and all of them point at Russia. Does a Pacifist have missiles? No, a pacifist has, at most, a burglar alarm.
Quite frankly I am sick to death of this non-debate which is aimed purely at you and me i.e. those who intend to vote Reform.
There is a simple fact here:
NATO intended, and still intends (note Secretary Generals speech in Ukraine in April), to put missiles in Ukraine pointing at Russia. No more needs to be said. If that is not provocation then I’m a raspberry ripple that was just bought from a Unicorn on Mars.
Mod teaboy who thinks he knows more than he does.
Ex-Army to the dvs. I know them well. ‘By the pricking of my thumbs, something stupid this way comes’.
I won’t try to defend every action NATO has taken but to claim it is not a defensive organisation is incorrect. Libya and Gadhafi are certainly worthy of discussion and debate but NATO has not ever initiated an attack for the purpose of increasing its territory. It is very much a defensive organisation – and a purposely militaristic one at that. It is not and does not claim to be a “Pacifist” (organisation) so that it has missiles is not just to be expected, it is a requirement for purpose. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with having those missiles aimed towards entities / organisations / nations that are threats to it. To NOT do so would be a dereliction of duty and purpose – ie a ready military defence of the nations bound by the treaty.
Does NATO have missiles pointed at Ireland (a non-Nato nation)? No, of course not. Ireland is not an aggressor nation. Does Ireland feel “threatened” because NATO is on its doorstep? Do other non-NATO European countries have the same issues? No, because they are not a threat of instigating aggression.
Neatly explained. Thank you
Not really replying to myself, here. Rather, I am curious if all the downvotes are emotional and based on what I have said simply not matching your “narrative” or because there are good arguments against what I have stated. If the latter, I would be happy to hear them. Everyone (myself very much included) is better off to hear reasoned opposition to statements and conclusions so I would happily welcome them.
Up to Clinton and Blair I would agree with your viewpoint. But its attack on Serbia was not what NATO was intended for, nor Libya. It is now just an arm of Uncle Sam’s’rules based’ world order where of course there are no rules. Do as we say or we will either sanction you to economic ruin or if you are a small country we will bomb you back to the Stone Age.
Thank you for that. I can agree that there isn’t anywhere near a perfect and clean record for NATO. But although I have plenty of gripes with US foreign policy, I don’t think I would conflate NATO actions and US actions as one and the same.
As long as Uncle Sam pays the lions share for NATO it is reasonable to assume that it does so for its own interests.
If, as I hope, Farage is elected to the HoC one of his first questions to the PM or Defence Secretary (if Labour bother with one) could be to enquire about the circumstances that led the MoD to publish a response to Farage in the middle of an election campaign.
So-called “purdah” rules are meant to prevent Whitehall from helping any party or parties.
My thoughts exactly.
Rules for thee, not for me!
The role of the 77th Brigade was asked to Sunak. The MP asking the questions made the mistake of asking two questions. Sunak only answered the first question that was not related to the 77 Brigade collecting information on journalists & MPs.
The US and Nato have created their own worst nightmare.
“The most dangerous scenario [for America] would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complimentary grievances.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard (1997).
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Russia-Turkiye-Iran-Change-Global-Geopolitical-Dynamics-20220720-0007.html
Where’s the rebuttal of the rebuttal from Ian Rons? It’s been 90 minutes already!
Heartily sick of Ian Rons, who holds too much sway at the DS. His absence is welcome. By the way, Farage is of course still way off the mark: in saying that ‘there has been no meaningful negotiation for peace’ he completely ignores the agreements hammered out in Istanbul, shortly after the conflict began … which were scuppered by the intervention of ……… Boris Johnson (aka Biden poodle). Mass slaughter has ensued.
Yes a much bigger stick to Bash Boris. That is the big sign he should’ve held up. Most of the public are ignorant of this.
I agree with your point above. However, as an advocate for free speech for all I would not stop Ian Rons from expressing his opinion. Inside I would debate with him and agree to disagree in a polite manner.
I suspect most regular DS readers can guess Ian Rons’ opinion…
He is consulting his 8 ball for his informed opinion.
Thank you Noah, for this simple but effective article. Kemp and his ilk have made utter fools of themselves in the Telegraph over the past couple of years. In short, they are either complete idiots or they are liars. No wonder the Russians no longer have any trust whatsoever in the West. Things become more dangerous every day, and people like Kemp are responsible for this.
Idiots gets my vote.
Red thumbs. Did I say something wrong? Three hail Mary’s and a how’s yer father on its way.
I haven’t got a subscription to the Telegraph, but the stench of midwittery exudes from those Kemp quotes as does that of sulfur* from hell.
*fine, hydrogen sulfide.
You can read most (all?) DT articles via MSN just by searching for the headline.
Farage is playing into our enemies’ hands (msn.com)
The arguments for not “poking the Russian bear” are not arguments of principle. They are practical arguments.
In the jostle between nations you can test boundaries but every nation has red lines.
The attempt to push NATO into Ukraine was a miscalculation of what constituted a red line for Putin’s government. They thought he was bluffing and he wasn’t.
They now want to cover up their balls up with arguments of principle and defending democracy and not appeasing an aggressor.
But the long and short of it is that they screwed up. And presumably in amongst the state machinery there are those who were always hot for war and are quite happy it’s going this way. The surrogates of the defence industry within the bureaucracy for one.
America! They have a big armed forces which means they are wise in the ways of the world and with such wisdom comes the right to be in command.
Pardon us for resorting to arguments of principle. Our bad.
If the mafia (or any other type of similar gang of your choosing) gets irked because the police decide to put a station near their headquarters, is that “provoking” the mafia? Who would be at fault if the mafia says that the police presence has crossed their red line and they (the mafia) start terrorising the citizens around its “territory”? The police? Or the mafia for being belligerent and aggressive in the first place?
That some actions can be seen as “provocative” can be argued. But to lose sight of the PRINCIPLES of who is morally correct or not in taking actions (and why those actions need to be taken) should not be forgotten.
And in addition to Kemp’s position, it is also true that Ukraine is not as united as some might think.
Did anyone see GB News last night. On Christys they discussed Julian Assange and not one of them were supportive. It was just the opinions of the guests there but Patrick could’ve countered some of what they were saying. Goes to show how GBN has fallen when all the guests are in favour of the deep state. Journalism died after Assange.
No, but wait and see what transpires in Australia later on. When I first heard about the outcome, it was via BBC World Service the other day, and it sounded like an unusual good news item. It might also be useful to know how the FSU has interpreted it as well. And what about Lord Cameron, and the MoD?
“While he disapproves of Putin’s actions, it appears Farage actually believes that his pretext for war is genuine.”
No he does not. He said Putin was using it as the pretext for war, that is not the same as ‘believing’ it is a genuine pretext. The casus belli is seldom the real reason for any war – WMDs in Iraq springs to mind as an example.
We all know WMDs was used as the pretext, that doesn’t mean we believe it genuine.
Seems to me that an awful lot of people like Kemp have a very strange syndrome which prevents them reading or hearing simple sentences. NATO do still plan to put missiles in Ukraine and Russia did, repeatedly, over many years, point that fact out. Eventually they did exactly what they said in the first place that they would do.
Farage pointed out that Russia used it as an excuse in a very, very simple sentence. Now, I differ from Farage, in my opinion NATO are the one and only reason for the war in Ukraine. They wanted a war. That, however, is my view.
Farage’ view differs and he was careful to make it clear where he stands on this. Kemp is either incredibly stupid or cannot understand basic English. Ian something or other on here the other day seems to be afflicted with the same debilitation as Kemp.
The analogy with WMD is excellent by the way, I hadn’t thought of that comparison.
Incidentally, the reason I believe NATO wanted a war in Ukraine is simple: Ukraine is not a member and, therefore, NATO forces i.e. countries did not have to go to a full on war. How do you find out how good “the enemy” is and not get blamed? Get someone else to do it for you.
They can sit back and watch as their weapons are used to deplete Russian forces. Didn’t work out quite so well as they hoped though did it?
Alastair Campbell was on GB News this morning saying how there have been many enquiries regarding WMDs and he’s been cleared on all of them. If Lockdown enquiry is anything to go by that doesn’t give my confidence.
Roughly fifty six million people in this country disagree with Mr Farage (and with most on here).
‘It is clear from our research that Britons recognise that their own security interests are inexorably linked to the stability of Europe and the broader international community. By standing firm in support of Ukraine, the UK can demonstrate its commitment to upholding the values of democracy and freedom.’
CT Group 06 June 2024
International legal opinion indicates why Mr Farage’s comments are so badly supported:
‘I said I disliked him as a person, but I admired him as a political operator because he’s managed to take control of running Russia.’
Putin has managed to take control of Russia by circumventing the Russian Constitution which allows only two Presidential terms and by killing his enemies at home and abroad.
To admire that is peculiar since some of those enemies have been killed by use of CBRN agents overseas.
As for the absurd idea that NATO has provoked Putin, let us look at the international legal perspective:
‘Justifying the military gathering at the Ukrainian border by claiming a feeling of insecurity, is an attempt to dissimulate a conscious and complete violation since 2014 of all the provisions of this text’
‘They (states) also have the right to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be party or not to bilateral or multilateral treaties, including the right to be party or not to treaties of alliance’
‘No consideration may be invoked to serve as a justification for the threat or use of force in violation of this principle’
‘The Helsinki Conference (1 August 1975) established the respect of borders in Europe and gave birth to the OSCE, of which Russia is a member. Its Charter confirms the above-mentioned principles.’
‘By annexing Crimea and by participating in the challenge of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is violating the fundamental texts of the United Nations, the statutes of the Council of Europe, of which Russia is a member, at least two regional treaties organizing peace in Europe and two bilateral treaties signed with Ukraine’
Already, Mr Carl’s article is otiose.
No matter who wins the U.S. Presidential election, the conflict will be frozen on existing front lines at some stage in 2026. Ukraine will be set up as a major European defensive power (as Finland is already) with a substantial domestic defence industry (as Finland has already), a ‘porcupine’ posture too strong to be attacked, but lacking in offensive capability.
Mr Farage and Mr Carl are entitled to their opinions. Not many in this country share them……because they are a bit weird and, NATO having increased in size and proximity to Russia since 2022, have been completely overtaken by events.
Ah, so it is wrong to subvert the constitiution to extend your time in power. Could you explain that to ex-president Zelensky that he has overstayed his constitutional period of office by the somewhat dubious device of self-declaring martial law.
At least Putin had the confidence to test his legitimact with an election. Any news of when Ukraine will return to democracy and similarly validate Zelensky’s position.
Volodymyr Zelensky’s presidential term came to an end on 20 May. According to the Ukrainian constitution, the head of state holds office for five years and performs their duties until a newly elected successor takes office. Elections are usually held on the last Sunday of March in the fifth year of the president’s term.
Such a vote should formally have been held in May, but that did not take place as the current act on the legal regime of martial law explicitly prohibits the government from holding presidential elections, parliamentary elections, referendums or amending the constitution as long as the act is in force.
The provisions of this act also extend the term of office of the head of state until the day when a president, elected after the end of martial law, is sworn in.
And who put in place the “legal regime”?
On 19 October 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin, at the beginning of a meeting of the Security Council of Russia dedicated to migration policy, announced the signing of a decree on the introduction of martial law in the territories of Ukraine annexed in early October 2022.
A clear and erudite comment by Munro. Yet, 2 upvotes and -31 downvotes.
Noah Carl and Ukraine is a recipe for self selecting a certain group, obviously.
It also deselects rational thinkers – I genuinely tried in the beginning, but now skip over anything by NC. I didn’t read this either, but only came in here to browse the comments to see how many share my view.
Most, clearly.
I’m none too sure that deliberately misinterpreting a simple, and obvious, sentence wins the debate here:
‘I said I disliked him as a person, but I admired him as a political operator because he’s managed to take control of running Russia.’
How you make the leap to some sort of lovefest from something so obvious in meaning is beyond me. For example, many people, myself included, believe Hitler was the greatest politician of the 20th Century. The reason is obvious, it doesn’t mean we all loved what he did, I certainly did not.
Tony Blair was incredibly successful, he even got away with deliberate mass murder. I admire the way he managed to con everyone and got to be known as Teflon Tony yet I loathed the man from the first time I heard him in the Commons as a new MP.
As for your statement:
“As for the absurd idea that NATO has provoked Putin, let us look at the international legal perspective”
First a question, with only one possible answer: did NATO attempt to get Ukraine to join NATO and accept missiles pointing at Russia on their territory? Given that the Secretary General of NATO gave a speech in April of 2022 confirming that Ukraine will immediately be admitted “when the time is right” the answer is obvious.
So, given that NATO intended to put missiles in Ukraine, on its vast border with Russia, how does that not count as provocation? Do you generally feel fully relaxed in your garden when all but one fence panel (Belarus) is bristling with machine guns?
Is it really so “weird” to point out that is exactly what Russia used as the excuse to invade Ukraine? I suggest that you should have spent more time looking at the facts and having a grown up argument with yourself instead of typing nonsensical crap.
NATO ballistic missile defence is not directed against Russia and cannot undermine Russia’s strategic deterrence capabilities. It is designed to protect European Allies against missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.
The Aegis Ashore site in Romania is purely defensive. The interceptor missiles deployed there cannot be used for offensive purposes. The interceptors contain no explosives. They cannot hit objects on the Earth’s surface – only in the air. In addition, the site lacks the software, the hardware and infrastructure needed to launch offensive missiles.
NATO invited Russia to cooperate on missile defence, an invitation extended to no other partner. Unfortunately, Russia refused to cooperate and rejected dialogue on this issue in 2013.
‘…..expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post–Cold War era.” Kennan 1997
Kennan never convinced President Bill Clinton or his Russia adviser, Strobe Talbott.
The real reason for the aggression?
As an autocratic leader who has denied his people the human rights we in the West enjoy, such as a free press, an honest judiciary, and especially genuinely contested elections, Putin is threatened by a liberalising Ukraine right on his border.
Putin’s 22-year tenure rests on banning free and fair elections, stifling dissent, and controlling domestic media, along with official propaganda that excoriates Western institutions and values.
Any lasting peace settlement in Ukraine will have to address two apparent causes of Russian aggression: the perceived threat from the border regions and the more recent threat of new and insidious ideas of an open and democratic society.
A settlement may have to include a Ukrainian promise of neutrality, at least over a period of years, and the commitment not to host joint military exercises with NATO.
Ukrainians will not accept any change in their liberal, Western-oriented society.
In the end, events on the battlefield will determine whether Putin achieves such political concessions.
There is evidence that Putin understands the potent Ukrainian nationalist sentiments in the west of the country, and he seems to be learning that pro-West, pro-Europe views are strong in the central and eastern regions too.
NATO ballistic missile defence is not directed against Russia …
NATO ballistic missile defence may be one thing (I had never heard of it) but US ballistic missiles are another and US is (now) openly at war with Russia and the blockheads in the White House are desperate to have their missiles all lined up along the 2,000km border to Russia.
NATO invited Russia to cooperate on missile defence …
Really? Defence against whom? Putin did apparently discuss with US President Clinton the possibility of Russia joining NATO which, when Clinton reported back, caused a flurry of total panic (why should NATO exist without an enemy?) ending in Clinton having to tell Putin, “Sorry, no”.
As an autocratic leader who has denied his people the human rights we in the West enjoy, such as a free press, an honest judiciary, and especially genuinely contested elections …
That is a sadly hilarious statement. Ask Julian Assange. If we had a free press, there would be no Daily Sceptic. An honest judiciary: Spider Woman? Genuinely contested elections – ask Trump, or ask why there is no real difference between Labour and Conservative.
Putin’s 22-year tenure rests on banning free and fair elections, stifling dissent, and controlling domestic media, along with official propaganda that excoriates Western institutions and values.
I, firstly, disagree and, secondly, you cannot deny that statement applies completely to Zelensky, who has arrested opposition leaders, banned political parties, banned free press and refuses to hold elections.
With reference to your insidious ideas of an open and democratic society, I suggest you watch a video or two of modern day Russia and its beautiful cities, particularly Moscow and St. Petersburg, where you immediately see free people walking about enjoying life, and a life they can afford at that.
Ukrainians will not accept any change in their liberal, Western-oriented society.
Any Ukrainians remaining in their country, you mean? And not those dragged into vans to be off-loaded on the front line?
In the end, events on the battlefield will determine whether Putin achieves such political concessions.
Ukraine never stood a chance against such a military power as Russia and the supposedly peaceful support of the west in propagating a hopeless war is truly disgusting, especially considering the opportunity Ukraine/Zelensky had with the Istanbul peace negotiations of March/April 2022.
There is evidence that Putin understands the potent Ukrainian nationalist sentiments in the west of the country …
Putin understands them completely which is why he never had any interest in ‘conquering’ Ukraine and thereby ruling over a civilisation that wants to be independent of Russia. He openly regards Ukrainians as fellow Slavs and this is why he was never interested in destroying Ukraine, which is well within Russian capabilities.
For heaven’s sake, he just wants peace but that peace has to include a permanently neutral Ukraine and a de-nazification of the Ukrainian military and governing class.
‘We’ve got 20 million people living below the poverty line. We have tens of millions of people living without the slightest prospects for the future. Life is bearable in Moscow, but travel 100 kilometers in any direction and everything’s a mess. Our whole country is living in this mess, without the slightest prospects, earning 20,000 rubles [$265] a month. And they’re all silent; they try to shut people up with these show trials. Lock up this one to scare millions more. One person takes to the streets and they lock up another five people to scare 15 million more.’
Alexey Navalny 02 Feb 2021
‘We need to use all possible legal means to put pressure on those in power……I’m running in these elections to demonstrate that there are still democratically inclined people in Russia; we don’t support the current regime, and we’re prepared to defend our rights and interests……..A lot of people are scared to help the opposition, even if they share our views……….I have big respect for those who decide to risk it………Unfortunately, it’s hard to talk about politics these days, even just at home, and not feel scared. But fear is a natural feeling…….We’ve got to make sure the fear keeps us from acting rashly but doesn’t numb us.’
Pavel Kharitonenko 20 June 2024
‘By annexing Crimea and by participating in the challenge of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is violating the fundamental texts of the United Nations, the statutes of the Council of Europe, of which Russia is a member, at least two regional treaties organizing peace in Europe and two bilateral treaties signed with Ukraine.’
‘They (states) also have the right to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be party or not to bilateral or multilateral treaties, including the right to be party or not to treaties of alliance’
‘The Helsinki Conference (1 August 1975) established the respect of borders in Europe and gave birth to the OSCE, of which Russia is a member. Its Charter confirms the above-mentioned principles.’
‘Justifying the military gathering at the Ukrainian border by claiming a feeling of insecurity, is an attempt to dissimulate a conscious and complete violation since 2014 of all the provisions of this text.’
Russia, Ukraine and international law 2022
This situation as horrific as it is has really brought the most important truths into the light. The Russians know that the average Brit doesn’t hate them or the average American. That is why they are increasingly talking about decapitation strategies. Anything else would be a fatal mistake given that according to the mystery schools Russia is the next capital of the Christian world. This has been prophecied for 200 years.
Thankfully, there’s been a moratorium on Carl and Ukraine for quite a while, and DS has been much the better for it.
Can we go back to that pleasant state of affairs?
Thank goodness the DS has some articles on Ukraine that talk sense and reflect the actual facts…rather than what they persist in publishing from Ian Rons.
Nigel was going along great. He was on top of the mass immigration issue for ages, highlighting the absurdity of not being in control of who comes here and enormous cost and lack of infrastructure to cope with such numbers in short spaces of time, and also who these people are, why they are all men in their twenties arriving in boats etc. and why they were destroying documents because they were not really fleeing from danger and were clearly just economic migrants. —–All perfectly true and the public (except the open border progressives) mostly agreed. He was bang on with Net Zero and how the UK Political Establishment are prepared to hammer their own citizens with UN inspired policies that seek to lower living standards because our lifestyles are deemed “unsustainable” and he was bang on with all the gender ideology crap.
But Nigel making excuses for Putin was a bad move. You should have kept your mouth shut on that one. The voting Public don’t want to hear that and it will cost Reform votes.
Let us wait until the voting public votes. Neither the polling companies nor especially individuals like you know anything, all are making assumptions and guessing.
Farage has been consistent on this issue from the off. Nick Robinson raised the issue in an interview. Bunter expressed the same viewpoint in 2016.
The globalists are in the business of destroying all nation states. Methods vary, but the desired outcome is the same. One world government and no nation states (and no democracy, no freedom, no different ways of doing things ….).
Anyone with a few functioning brain-cells; a reasonable knowledge of the events leading up to the Russian invasion (ie from the expansion eastwards of the EU); a reasonable knowledge of Russia’s history from the 1800s and even a basic grasp of military tactics knows that Farage was right.
Russia feels threatened by NATO and Ukraine’s possible membership. And it has good reasons to feel threatened by it.
Attack is the best form of defence. And that is what Putin, quite understandably, did. That’s not to say I condone it but it was entirely foreseeable and the USA/EU/UK/NATO must have predicted it since they aren’t stupid.
So the USA/NATO deliberately provoked him.
Spot on – no need for further complications.
“While he disapproves of Putin’s actions, it appears Farage actually believes that his pretext for war is genuine. That is something he has in common with Jeremy Corbyn.”
…should read…
“While he disapproves of Putin’s actions, it appears Farage actually believes that in Putin’s mind, his pretext for war is genuine. That is something he has in common with Jeremy Corbyn.”
Subtle but important difference. It is not Farage’s belief, but Putin’s.
I am sick and tired of all the claimed Putin mind readers who are simply using it as an excuse to voice their particular prejudices.
Better would be to read Russian official translations of what he actually has been saying for years, and to ignore Western translations as they rarely understand the nuances, even if they translate to words accurately, which is not a foregone conclusion.
Young Kemp needs some concentrated history infusions. And, Oh!, what is his attitude to the US’ far more wide-ranging Monroe Doctrine?