The price we pay for the anti-vaxxers....

THE anti-vaxxers are now costing us taxpayers an absolute fortune and risking the destruction of our NHS. Bit strong? Well probably not.

It is now said that over 75% of those with Covid-19 needing hospital care are anti-vaxxers. And if you look at current infection rates it certainly looks to be true.

Total numbers infected are at last falling but numbers entering hospital are soaring. And that means it is those without the benefit of the vaccine who are getting seriously ill and needing hospital care. In their thousands it seems.

This interpretation is also borne out by the falling death rate. It is the aged and those with pre-existing conditions who mostly constitute the dying - so if that number is still falling it follows that those needing hospital care are fit enough overall to survive the virus, however ill it may make them in the meantime. So, anti-vaxxers.

Now I am not a mean minded person and I firmly believe in the NHS but... if someone takes a serious risk with their lives I think they should pay for their treatment. Not the life saving bit in the event of an accident – but the longer term care that is often the outcome.

And so it needs to be with Covid-19 - an easy route to protection exists in the vaccine and the vast majority of people are sane enough to understand that. So should those who do take the vaccine route have to pay for those who stubbornly and knowingly refuse?

It is certainly neither right no fair to change the system right now. But it is right that now is the time to look carefully at the costs we bear from the activities of our modern world and of our personal decisions.

Should we all bear the hospital costs of the few who undertake seriously dangerous activities or refuse to accept the widely accepted course of safe action?

Should we all bear the cost of the rock climber, the tombstoner, the sky diver, the cave diver etc who takes a risk and falls to serious injury? Yes we should get them to hospital. Yes we should pay to save their lives. But their injuries, knowingly risked, often result in expensive long term care. Should we all pay for that? Or should they be required to insure against these risks?

I say yes, they should and I say that this could reduce the NHS costs to all of us considerably.

A nice Jewish boy is born....

JUST read an interesting piece by Simon Kellner in the i. He outlines why Christmas can mean a lot to Jews as well as Christians. Kellner of course is a Jew and rightly proud of it. He amusingly reminds us that Jesus was “a nice Jewish boy”. That is what set me thinking.

I am an atheist and am fairly convinced that Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the New Testament, did not exist. But that does not mean I doubt there was a rebellious Jewish lad around that time. Indeed I expect there were many.

My reason is that I like sometimes to imagine what it may have been like to live in another time; to try to understand why events occurred the way they did. And so to Israel and the Roman occupation.

Roman general Pompei conquered Jerusalem and its surroundings by 63 BCE. The Romans deposed the ruling Hasmonean dynasty of Judaea (in power from c. 140 BCE) and the Roman Senate declared Herod the Great "King of the Jews" in c. 40 BCE.

So around the time Rome invaded Britain the invaded Is real. We know how they behaved in Britain and while typical of invaders it could not be described as genteel. So it must have been in Israel.

Israel had an entrenched and dominant religion – Judaism. Indeed, from what we know of Britain the Judaic faith had a very much stronger and more ubiquitous hold on Israel than the Druids had here.

But one feature is certain – the Romans of that time were decidedly pagan. To them the monotheistic Jewish faith would have been impenetrably mysterious and alien. So too the Druids. And to both Jew and Druid the Romans would be positively demonic.

Here the Romans hunted down and destroyed the Druids but we must bear in mind they wanted what the druids controlled – the gold, especially in north Wales. But in Israel the entire nastion held the same stoic faith; that was not an option. Thus Herod, the Roman 'placeman' was given or took the authority to rule by despotism while leaving the religious structures in place.

The natural reaction of the Jewish hierarchy may well have been to reinforce their hold through their religion. And this would have given greater power and authority to the priests. And encouraged sects such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. And energised those who took a differing view to these entrenched and more traditional extremes. Namely young upstarts like the Christ figure. His reported views were positively revolutionary to the Jewish hierarchy – and thus a threat to Roman rule. The reported attempt to moderate this with the 'render unto Caesar' line cut little ice it seems.

Add to that the crackdown by an invading and unwelcome dictator like Herod and you start to have the perfect storm in which things boil and bubble.

So when Kellner teasingly refers to Christ as a nice Jewish boy he is probably not far from one truth while distant perhaps from fact; there may have been nothing very nice in reality to men like Christ. They were rebels with a cause. Or possibly two causes – to tear down the hierarchy that controlled the religion and the people and thus create the environment for rebellion and the removal of the upstart and ungodly Romans.

And when the writers who recorded the stories of that time came to put pen to paper they chose to characterise the people as rebellious – they chose the dastardly Barabas against the more genteel Christ; that metaphor may tell us much.

I firmly believe that the New Testament as translated for the Christian market is, just as the Old Testament is for the Jewish faith, a mythical and metaphorical rendering of folklore mixed with real history. And what that may tell us is a religious version of the Jewish struggle against both the Romans and those who saw power to be hand by collaboration.

And that , under the veneer of this story, lies the real truth – that many rebels wanted a new order; a new Judaism and new Judaic government of Israel.

Sat in the lands of Israel Rome would have seemed very far away and its actual power reduced to those legions and arms that could be seen. The idea of a successful revolt would not have seemed as impossible as we understand it would have been.

Like Boudica and her Iceni tribes, Rome looked vulnerable. Especially to the military method of terrorist shock and awe that ancient Britain plied. Rome would have looked stiff, formal, inflexible to warriors who ran free in the woods and struck without warning or mercy.

So in Israel, Rome may have looked vulnerable. And that made the 'Quisling' intermediaries of the Priesthood and the warring sects look like the real problem to be overcome. Build a new, vibrant faith and the people will follow. It's a possibility, I suggest.

What that does is to place Christ, Barabas and others in the category of freedom fighters (aka of course, terrorists).

It makes them equivalent to Boudicca and the then Roman Governor of Britain, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus – Jewish rebels versus Herod.

But unlike Britain, in Israel the Romans appear to have the had the ubiquitous faith onside already, at least among the hierarchy.

And so the burgeoning rebellion of the transition years was put down by removing the head(s) of the viper(s).

Thus it was another 60 years before the Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) began. It saw the first of three major rebellions by the Jews against the Roman Empire, fought in Roman-controlled Judea, resulting in the destruction of Jewish towns, the displacement of its people and the appropriation of land for Roman military use, as well as the destruction of the Jewish Temple and polity.

Interesting to note the dates – Boudicca's revolt was in 47CE.

And so to Christmas. Why would Jews not mark the winter solstice anyway? And they acknowledge John the Baptiser as a prophet and even Jesus; it is only his Messianic role they utterly deny. But the faith they pursue today is the same faith that the Jeus person was said to be tearing down; he cannot easily be a martyr in their eyes.

But they live and work and pray alongside people of many faiths. And the history of Christianity starts with Judaism and remains a monotheistic religion. It seems to me entirely natural that they should see the Christian festival as a reason to join in the celebrations.

So just as this here atheist acknowledges the winter solstice and the reason for peace and love and the religious drive to faith for others so do all men of goodwill. Mazel tov! Merry Christmas! And may we all together wish for a Happy New Year!

SIDEBAR: When I was a boy my father played double bass in dance bands in the west end and to get to and from the gigs he used a black London cab run by a chap called Reg Page. Reg was big, jolly, and Jewish. His favourite joke was the Jewish toy factory owner who took his sons to the warehouse every Christmas. “Look boys – empty shelves! That's why we celebrate Christmas!”.

And so Reg arrived every December 25, mid morning to wish us all a Merry Christmas, take a glass of sherry and enjoy a joke or two. As he would always joke as he left: “Where else would I go on Christmas Day – I've nothing else to do...”