Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
"Ms Colman, calling on behalf of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties. We've had a meeting. I know your Oscar winning career is currently approaching the stratosphere, and you could literally walk into any role you wanted, but I have an offer you simply CAN'T refuse..."
How about David Mitchell then? I would drown a bagful of kittens to see him on either side of the dispatch box at PMQs.
Just put the whole of Peep Show in charge of everything. Mark as PM, Jeremy as Chancellor, Sophie at the Home Office, Johnson as Business Secretary and Super Hans in charge of Health. The woman who Mark sleeps with and whose dog he and Jeremy subsequently eat would be good for Defence. Dobbie could handle Education. Every Cabinet meeting opens with a Rainbow Rhythms style dance session. They couldn't be any worse than the current shitshow.
Move Super Hans to the foreign office and point him at Putin.
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
Nigella Lawson for Tory traditionalists or for a bit of reform and banter we could have Gordon Ramsey.
Nigella has cross-party appeal, but I don't think she'd want to get involved.
Gareth Southgate.
Tempting, but he's probably a bit busy now.
Who suggested Martin Lewis The Moneysaving Expert? He'd be good if he wanted the role, but I suspect he's got more sense.
If yesterday someone had suggested Michael Vaughan, I would have thought that a good suggestion.....we don't actually know much of what these celebs believe.
Michael Vaughan is a complete idiot, that was known before yesterday (I have no idea if he's telling the truth regarding the YCCC stuff).
Martin Lewis is very clearly not an idiot. What I'm much less clear about is how he thinks "the system" should be rather than how he thinks people should behave in "the system" as it is. It would be interesting to find out.
Lewis would be useful in parliament for things like his forensic analysis of student loans and the damage pretending it is a loans system rather than a graduate tax (ok almost a graduate tax) causes to social mobility. I would not be surprised if all the parties had already sounded him out for interest as a future candidate before the last GE.
He's more suited to Lords work than being a front line politician, and expect he'll be sounded out in due course
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
Nigella Lawson for Tory traditionalists or for a bit of reform and banter we could have Gordon Ramsey.
Nigella has cross-party appeal, but I don't think she'd want to get involved.
Gareth Southgate.
Tempting, but he's probably a bit busy now.
Who suggested Martin Lewis The Moneysaving Expert? He'd be good if he wanted the role, but I suspect he's got more sense.
Finding every money-saving/making technicality open to an MP might not be a good look
And he, just ATM, some egg on his face due to advising all and sundry to take the cheapest electricity and gas on offer. Many of those who did have now had to be shifted to more durable suppliers.
True, to an extent. I haven't done the maths, but I suspect that anyone who has been following his advice for more than a month or two before the great energy company extinction event will still be well ahead over having stayed on one of the big suppliers' SVTs.
I'm one of those now on an eye-watering tariff for the winter, but that's easily covered by savings over the last 6-7 years.
I've always taken the cheapest E.ON option on a one- or two-year basis and I think that one way and another I'm probably not a great deal worse off, if at all.
Yep, main thing was not to sit on the SVT. The best thing to do was clearly to agree a two year term around nine months (maybe more?) or so back with a company that hasn't gone bust
This morning at 1 I woke up with all the symptoms of Covid. Fever, digestive trouble, muscle fatigue/spasms, and a cough.
I did an LFT and it came back negative.
I got in touch with my boss and she ordered me to get a PCR on the grounds that LFTs usually do not pick up on symptomatic cases.
Which, given they are also pretty useless for asymptomatic cases, makes me wonder just what the fecking point of them is.
Your boss is wrong.
The distinction in the case of LFTs is between infectious and not very infectious cases. Asymptomatic and asymptomatic cases can fall into either category.
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
Nigella Lawson for Tory traditionalists or for a bit of reform and banter we could have Gordon Ramsey.
Nigella has cross-party appeal, but I don't think she'd want to get involved.
Gareth Southgate.
Tempting, but he's probably a bit busy now.
Who suggested Martin Lewis The Moneysaving Expert? He'd be good if he wanted the role, but I suspect he's got more sense.
Finding every money-saving/making technicality open to an MP might not be a good look
And he, just ATM, some egg on his face due to advising all and sundry to take the cheapest electricity and gas on offer. Many of those who did have now had to be shifted to more durable suppliers.
True, to an extent. I haven't done the maths, but I suspect that anyone who has been following his advice for more than a month or two before the great energy company extinction event will still be well ahead over having stayed on one of the big suppliers' SVTs.
I'm one of those now on an eye-watering tariff for the winter, but that's easily covered by savings over the last 6-7 years.
I've always taken the cheapest E.ON option on a one- or two-year basis and I think that one way and another I'm probably not a great deal worse off, if at all.
Yep, main thing was not to sit on the SVT. The best thing to do was clearly to agree a two year term around nine months (maybe more?) or so back with a company that hasn't gone bust
Smug b*****d writes: If it looks too good to be true.....
On the by-election, the Tories will have a clean-skin candidate. Therefore I don't think a white-suit candidate would be effective.
It isn't comparable to the Hamilton / Bell scenario when Mr Dodgy was still the Tory candidate.
You're right, though it would be interesting to ask the new candidate - who no doubt will be keen not to trash Paterson - whether they agree that Paterson was stitched up by the Commissioner and denied justice, or whether his behaviour was indeed improper.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I lost any sympathy for Paterson when he called for the standards commissioner to resign. After her report was unanimously accepted by the committee and something like a quarter of Tory MPs failed to support a motion on a 3 line whip.
Interesting. It appears to be mutations to the nucleocapsid protein that makes Delta so much more infectious. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl6184 Efforts to determine why new SARS-CoV-2 variants demonstrate improved fitness have been limited to analyzing mutations in the spike (S) protein using S-pseudotyped particles. Here we show that SARS-CoV-2 virus-like particles (SC2-VLPs) can package and deliver exogenous transcripts, enabling analysis of mutations within all structural proteins and at multiple steps in the viral life cycle. In SC2-VLPs, four nucleocapsid (N) mutations found universally in more-transmissible variants independently increased mRNA delivery and expression by ~10-fold, and in a reverse genetics model, S202R and R203M each produced >50-fold more virus. SC2-VLPs provide a platform for rapid testing of viral variants outside a biosafety level 3 setting and demonstrate N mutations and particle assembly to be mechanisms that could explain the increased spread of variants, including Delta (R203M).
I don’t think anyone predicted this, which shows how little we still know of the detailed mechanics of viral replication.
(Note most of this work was done with virus like particles which can’t replicate, so the experimental method itself was pretty safe.)
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
No.
The by-elections - at present - do not represent a strategy opportunity for the Opposition(s).
All three are too Tory, too Brexity.
I pointed out yesterday, if you told Tory central they needed to pick 3 seats in which there would be by-elections - chances are they would have picked these seats.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
"Ms Colman, calling on behalf of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties. We've had a meeting. I know your Oscar winning career is currently approaching the stratosphere, and you could literally walk into any role you wanted, but I have an offer you simply CAN'T refuse..."
How about David Mitchell then? I would drown a bagful of kittens to see him on either side of the dispatch box at PMQs.
I have him in the Covid Dead Pool and still want to win.
Meant to ask, did anyone have Colin Powell? It was Covid complications that did for him I think.
Nope, paristonda has come the closest so far with the agonisingly close near miss on Johnson.
A couple of nominations have died (Phil the Greek, the Notorious RBG) but not of covid.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
No.
The by-elections - at present - do not represent a strategy opportunity for the Opposition(s).
All three are too Tory, too Brexity.
I pointed out yesterday, if you told Tory central they needed to pick 3 seats in which there would be by-elections - chances are they would have picked these seats.
There is Old Bexley and Sidcup and Shropshire North but what is the 3rd by election in a Tory seat?
Downing Street has clearly treated parliament as a populist assembly, a lapdog to executive power. That 250 Tory MPs on Wednesday night, after damning dozens of ordinary MPs such as Keith Vaz and Ian Paisley for unethical behaviour, could obey Johnson’s orders to bail out his friend is, if anything, more awful than Johnson’s own decision.
I suppose it is to the credit of Tory MPs that they slept on their decision and now recognise their guilt, swiftly protesting. But what did they think they were doing?
All power corrupts, the more absolutely it grows. Johnson last year forced the resignation of the ministerial standards officer, Sir Alex Allen, by rejecting his censure of the home secretary, Priti Patel, for bullying her staff. He found himself at odds with the Electoral Commission over his use of political donations to refurbish his flat, which even his aide Dominic Cummings thought “unethical, foolish, possibly illegal”. Two years ago, Johnson had to be dragged to the supreme court and stand corrected over his refusal to recall parliament. Now he has tried effectively to sack the House of Commons parliamentary commissioner for standards, who was reportedly soon to open another inquiry into his expenses. The prime minister plainly has a dysfunctional relationship with the law.
In many countries, the national assembly would have its rights in these matters constitutionally embedded. Not in Britain. In many, there would be a role for the supreme court. Again, not in Britain. Those who share the Downing Street sofa with Boris Johnson do so unknown. Those who advise the prime minister may do so in secret, unaccountable to parliament. The result is a mess.
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
"Ms Colman, calling on behalf of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties. We've had a meeting. I know your Oscar winning career is currently approaching the stratosphere, and you could literally walk into any role you wanted, but I have an offer you simply CAN'T refuse..."
How about David Mitchell then? I would drown a bagful of kittens to see him on either side of the dispatch box at PMQs.
I have him in the Covid Dead Pool and still want to win.
Meant to ask, did anyone have Colin Powell? It was Covid complications that did for him I think.
Nope, paristonda has come the closest so far with the agonisingly close near miss on Johnson.
A couple of nominations have died (Phil the Greek, the Notorious RBG) but not of covid.
I shamelessly poached 104 year old Olivia de Havilland who slipped away peacefully in her sleep.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
No.
The by-elections - at present - do not represent a strategy opportunity for the Opposition(s).
All three are too Tory, too Brexity.
I pointed out yesterday, if you told Tory central they needed to pick 3 seats in which there would be by-elections - chances are they would have picked these seats.
There is Old Bexley and Sidcup and Shropshire North but what is the 3rd by election in a Tory seat?
Oxford already has 0 Tory councillors and 0 Tory MPs so is not a million miles from Peckham, I know as I spend half my time there.
The main opposition party to Labour in Oxford locally is the LDs, especially in the posher bits (though the Tories did win the OxWAB seat under Cameron at parliamentary level but have since lost it to the LDs, Oxford East is strong Labour)
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
Nigella Lawson for Tory traditionalists or for a bit of reform and banter we could have Gordon Ramsey.
Nigella has cross-party appeal, but I don't think she'd want to get involved.
Gareth Southgate.
Tempting, but he's probably a bit busy now.
Who suggested Martin Lewis The Moneysaving Expert? He'd be good if he wanted the role, but I suspect he's got more sense.
If yesterday someone had suggested Michael Vaughan, I would have thought that a good suggestion.....we don't actually know much of what these celebs believe.
Michael Vaughan is a complete idiot, that was known before yesterday (I have no idea if he's telling the truth regarding the YCCC stuff).
Martin Lewis is very clearly not an idiot. What I'm much less clear about is how he thinks "the system" should be rather than how he thinks people should behave in "the system" as it is. It would be interesting to find out.
Vaughan isn't an idiot he is a decent guy, even if a lousy commentator. No way did he say those words in the context presented. Honest journalism is dying.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
Jesus
1. This is ONE poll. A snapshot. The question is about trend, not snapshots that make up the trend. 2. Byelections - contentious ones - do not follow either the latest poll or the trend.
It is literally laughable that you can post this with a straight face. Your party is corrupt. You personally crawled through the sewer these last few days defending the indefensible and then did what you always did when they do a u-turn and crawl in reverse saying the new position is right and was always right.
Tories may well win both by-elections. But you are in no position to make such confident statements because you have demonstrated that you have as sound a moral compass and political judgement as the PM.
At least have some humility man! "We got this wrong. In hindsight I was wrong to support it".
If EU were to retaliate by terminating TCA it is logically & legally neater in many ways. EU always said TCA is predicated on WA & Protocol so if the latter falls away so does the former. It also uses a clause in TCA rather than arguing over what is doable under A16 itself 2/...
And on the surface it sounds like a nuclear response. But is it? Nothing major would happen for 12 months, meaning limited additional pain for UK in this period. It also allows the UK to change the facts on the ground in NI in the interim. 3/
UK approach in NI would become the norm. If EU did not respond by putting any borders up, there would be 12 months of evidence that UK approach essentially works to avoid hard border. Would also likely keep most in NI happy due to very few checks & still best of both worlds 4/
So you're then faced with scenario where EU is suspending or terminating entire TCA over a situation which most of NI is likely happy with, especially business, & from which most EU states haven't felt any repercussions. Would they still want to pull down TCA in that scenario? 5/
Is there still a vote on Paterson, or is that now cancelled he is Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead?
I can't see why there will be a vote on him. But there will be a debate on the events of Wednesday / Thursday and the implications. That has already been granted by the Speaker. A man who is already somewhat unhappy with the Treasury Bench's repeated disdain for due process and who much be at least a little entertained by the spectacle.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
The Yougov was taken peak Paterson and concluded last night, now Paterson has resigned it will die down as an issue
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
The Yougov was taken peak Paterson and concluded last night, now Paterson has resigned it will die down as an issue
Possibly, possibly not.
Sometime it's the issue that destroys you, other times it's the coverup.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
The Yougov was taken peak Paterson and concluded last night, now Paterson has resigned it will die down as an issue
I don't think you understand how many 'ordinary' folk receive their news.
Those of us posting on here all day and following every twist and turn via the media and social media are already up with events.
For a lot of people, the story is still spreading. For example my own local paper has just posted a website story about how the local MP voted, with comments from local opposition parties - I doubt it made the hard copy edition, out today but put to bed on Wednesday - so it may not be in the print edition until next week.
Meanwhile people will be out walking their dogs and meeting at the school gate and talking to family and friends; those that know will be commenting to those that don't. To draw a conclusion on public reaction to a political event the day afterwards is simply nuts.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
The Yougov was taken peak Paterson and concluded last night, now Paterson has resigned it will die down as an issue
You're a closer watcher of polls than I am, so may be right. However, people reflect on events as well as reacting immediately, so I'm a bit cautious. And there seems to be a head of steam building up about corruption, jobs for the boys and so on, so lets wait and see.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
The Yougov was taken peak Paterson and concluded last night, now Paterson has resigned it will die down as an issue
I suspect you are right but hope you are wrong as I think there is something more fundamentally wrong with this version of the Tory party.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
The Tories certainly are but none of the main parties are able to just the person in the street and what they think. Not a single one.
Nobody at Westminster but come election time the Tories on the ground at local level beat the rest, by a lot.
Maybe but surely you must agree it is long past the time the Tories got rid of Bunter. By this time last year many mp's were turning but the vaccine roll out saved him. A very expensive roll out, which will have to be paid for.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
And, to be clear, it isn't just care home staff who have to be vaccinated, it's anyone entering the care home? That is, relatives won't be allowed to visit if they aren't jabbed. I can imagine that causing a few arguments.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
The Yougov was taken peak Paterson and concluded last night, now Paterson has resigned it will die down as an issue
"Peak Patterson" isn't the issue - perceived Tory sleaze and government incompetence are - and they haven't gone away - lets see what the Sundays have instore, but I doubt they'll make fun reading for the government - the repercussions from this are far from over.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
And, to be clear, it isn't just care home staff who have to be vaccinated, it's anyone entering the care home? That is, relatives won't be allowed to visit if they aren't jabbed. I can imagine that causing a few arguments.
Looking at it from every angle this is a crackpot policy, based on lies fed through the media to the public. The MRNA Vaccines were always designed to stop people getting to the danger phases of the NCIP Virus, not stop transmission.
Downing Street has clearly treated parliament as a populist assembly, a lapdog to executive power. That 250 Tory MPs on Wednesday night, after damning dozens of ordinary MPs such as Keith Vaz and Ian Paisley for unethical behaviour, could obey Johnson’s orders to bail out his friend is, if anything, more awful than Johnson’s own decision.
I suppose it is to the credit of Tory MPs that they slept on their decision and now recognise their guilt, swiftly protesting. But what did they think they were doing?
All power corrupts, the more absolutely it grows. Johnson last year forced the resignation of the ministerial standards officer, Sir Alex Allen, by rejecting his censure of the home secretary, Priti Patel, for bullying her staff. He found himself at odds with the Electoral Commission over his use of political donations to refurbish his flat, which even his aide Dominic Cummings thought “unethical, foolish, possibly illegal”. Two years ago, Johnson had to be dragged to the supreme court and stand corrected over his refusal to recall parliament. Now he has tried effectively to sack the House of Commons parliamentary commissioner for standards, who was reportedly soon to open another inquiry into his expenses. The prime minister plainly has a dysfunctional relationship with the law.
In many countries, the national assembly would have its rights in these matters constitutionally embedded. Not in Britain. In many, there would be a role for the supreme court. Again, not in Britain. Those who share the Downing Street sofa with Boris Johnson do so unknown. Those who advise the prime minister may do so in secret, unaccountable to parliament. The result is a mess.
Mostly true but not quite. The fact that the PM can take advice on the sofa from anyone he likes is of course true of all PMs and isn't relevant; it's just a smear.
But the 'national assembly' (Parliament) does have absolute rights in this matter. It is the highest court in the land and is unappealable, and unlimited in its powers. The fact that over Brexit and perhaps over this farce it has proved weak tells us about the stature of those we elect, not about our constitutional safeguards.
Parliament trumps everything, (including government). Commons trumps Lords. Electors elect Commons. Simples. Pre Brexit that truth was qualified. Now it isn't.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
The Yougov was taken peak Paterson and concluded last night, now Paterson has resigned it will die down as an issue
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Away with your Bad Facts*.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
The Yougov was taken peak Paterson and concluded last night, now Paterson has resigned it will die down as an issue
Possibly, possibly not.
Sometime it's the issue that destroys you, other times it's the coverup.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
There is also real world evidence this is not the case. The inventor of the MRNA technology is certainly clear on this. The evidence that a fit and healthy person benefits on balance from taking these vaccines is very thin and I am very well read on this subject. These are not your normal flu type vaccines and the amount of intelligent people who still do not know this staggers me.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
There is also real world evidence this is not the case. The inventor of the MRNA technology is certainly clear on this. The evidence that a fit and healthy person benefits on balance from taking these vaccines is very thin and I am very well read on this subject. These are not your normal flu type vaccines and the amount of intelligent people who still do not know this staggers me.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
And, to be clear, it isn't just care home staff who have to be vaccinated, it's anyone entering the care home? That is, relatives won't be allowed to visit if they aren't jabbed. I can imagine that causing a few arguments.
Looking at it from every angle this is a crackpot policy, based on lies fed through the media to the public. The MRNA Vaccines were always designed to stop people getting to the danger phases of the NCIP Virus, not stop transmission.
I think Javid quoted the care sector as being about 97% covered by first vaccinations a couple of weeks ago, with medical exemption covering a good portion of the remainder, so if the the second doses do roll in on schedule (and a good number will have hurried to have first doses quite late in response to the mandation), the size of issue might end up being around 20% of that quoted by the MEN. Let's hope so.
There is another parliamentary by-election - to the House of Lords.
Viscount Simon died on 15 August 2021 and was a Labour elected hereditary peer elected by the whole house. Thus the electorate for this by-election is the whole house of lords.
It is expected that that the vacancy will be filled by a hereditary peer who will sit as a Labour peer.
There are three candidates, Lord Biddulph (Conservative), Lord Hacking (Labour), Lord Kennet (Labour).
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Away with your Bad Facts*.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
"Ms Colman, calling on behalf of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties. We've had a meeting. I know your Oscar winning career is currently approaching the stratosphere, and you could literally walk into any role you wanted, but I have an offer you simply CAN'T refuse..."
How about David Mitchell then? I would drown a bagful of kittens to see him on either side of the dispatch box at PMQs.
I have him in the Covid Dead Pool and still want to win.
I have HM the Q so if she goes with not a trace of Covid that's it, I'm out. Metaphorical ticket screwed up and tossed onto bookie's floor, head shake, mumble mumble mumble, wonder if the offie's still open ... just like the old days.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
And, to be clear, it isn't just care home staff who have to be vaccinated, it's anyone entering the care home? That is, relatives won't be allowed to visit if they aren't jabbed. I can imagine that causing a few arguments.
Looking at it from every angle this is a crackpot policy, based on lies fed through the media to the public. The MRNA Vaccines were always designed to stop people getting to the danger phases of the NCIP Virus, not stop transmission.
I think Javid quoted the care sector as being about 97% covered by first vaccinations a couple of weeks ago, with medical exemption covering a good portion of the remainder, so if the the second doses do roll in on schedule (and a good number will have hurried to have first doses quite late in response to the mandation), the size of issue might end up being around 20% of that quoted by the MEN. Let's hope so.
Remarkably when it comes to losing your job, suddenly the reasons for not getting jabbed become less important.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
The Yougov was taken peak Paterson and concluded last night, now Paterson has resigned it will die down as an issue
You sound very complacent
Perhaps the most interesting finding of the poll has been the main movement away from the Tories in terms of Conservative 2019 voters has been to RefUK, not Labour
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
"Ms Colman, calling on behalf of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties. We've had a meeting. I know your Oscar winning career is currently approaching the stratosphere, and you could literally walk into any role you wanted, but I have an offer you simply CAN'T refuse..."
How about David Mitchell then? I would drown a bagful of kittens to see him on either side of the dispatch box at PMQs.
I have him in the Covid Dead Pool and still want to win.
I have HM the Q so if she goes with not a trace of Covid that's it, I'm out. Metaphorical ticket screwed up and tossed onto bookie's floor, head shake, mumble mumble mumble, wonder if the offie's still open ... just like the old days.
On the other hand if she goes with it, will we even find out that's what she had?
There is another parliamentary by-election - to the House of Lords.
Viscount Simon died on 15 August 2021 and was a Labour elected hereditary peer elected by the whole house. Thus the electorate for this by-election is the whole house of lords.
It is expected that that the vacancy will be filled by a hereditary peer who will sit as a Labour peer.
There are three candidates, Lord Biddulph (Conservative), Lord Hacking (Labour), Lord Kennet (Labour).
Cracking statements: 1 "Always happy to serve if requested. I have many happy memories of the House." (vote for my happy memories!)
2 "The 2019 General Election was a disaster. If come back again to Parliament I will do all I can to focus the Party on this essential need." (you want another "disaster"?)
3 "should be proud and humbled to be elected" (proud AND humble?)
I lost any sympathy for Paterson when he called for the standards commissioner to resign. After her report was unanimously accepted by the committee and something like a quarter of Tory MPs failed to support a motion on a 3 line whip.
Yes, me too, that was bad. Unless we're missing some sort of malicious underhand conspiracy against him involving an awful lot of people which really seems unlikely.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Away with your Bad Facts*.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
So give me a Bad Fact.
According to the lecturer, contradicting conspiracy theories held by minority groups is "talking down"
She actually gave the example of "AIDs is CIA biowarfare".
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Away with your Bad Facts*.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
There is also real world evidence this is not the case. The inventor of the MRNA technology is certainly clear on this. The evidence that a fit and healthy person benefits on balance from taking these vaccines is very thin and I am very well read on this subject. These are not your normal flu type vaccines and the amount of intelligent people who still do not know this staggers me.
Well read from conspiracy websites it seems.
Far from it, you can provide a more original reply surely. Where is the data that fit and healthy people are a more than tiny risk from the NCIP Virus? The NHS data doesn't say so and doesn't include the obese in the pre existing condition sections.
What I find quite curious about this Paterson thing is that one of his supporters is Labour Party member and ex-Speaker John Bercow.
Bercow presumably knows how disciplinary procedures should occur in Parliament and he wrote, the process leading to the ban was 'indefensible' and was not 'conducted in accordance with natural justice'.
In a letter to Mr Paterson, Mr Bercow said: 'You have experienced a protracted, Kafkaesque process.'
And he said it was 'wrong and indefensible, 14 months after launching her investigation, that [Miss Stone] should write her first memorandum to you to announce that she considers you guilty of transgressions when she has not troubled to interview you', according to The Times.
Are they just old backbench buddies, so nothing should be read into Bercow's attack on Stone's conduct? Or is this actually evidence that the process has been very poorly managed?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
There is also real world evidence this is not the case. The inventor of the MRNA technology is certainly clear on this. The evidence that a fit and healthy person benefits on balance from taking these vaccines is very thin and I am very well read on this subject. These are not your normal flu type vaccines and the amount of intelligent people who still do not know this staggers me.
Well read from conspiracy websites it seems.
Far from it, you can provide a more original reply surely. Where is the data that fit and healthy people are a more than tiny risk from the NCIP Virus? The NHS data doesn't say so and doesn't include the obese in the pre existing condition sections.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
And, to be clear, it isn't just care home staff who have to be vaccinated, it's anyone entering the care home? That is, relatives won't be allowed to visit if they aren't jabbed. I can imagine that causing a few arguments.
Looking at it from every angle this is a crackpot policy, based on lies fed through the media to the public. The MRNA Vaccines were always designed to stop people getting to the danger phases of the NCIP Virus, not stop transmission.
I think Javid quoted the care sector as being about 97% covered by first vaccinations a couple of weeks ago, with medical exemption covering a good portion of the remainder, so if the the second doses do roll in on schedule (and a good number will have hurried to have first doses quite late in response to the mandation), the size of issue might end up being around 20% of that quoted by the MEN. Let's hope so.
A lot have already left though and that is the big problem Javid has created. Plenty of other low paid jobs in the market with less much less responsibility.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Away with your Bad Facts*.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
So give me a Bad Fact.
Yes, come on, let's hear one.
Depends if we are being serious or flippant. All of these I suspect betray opinions.
My current favourite Bad Fact to drop into a quiet seminar where everybody shares the same prejudices, to create general and vigorous debate would perhaps be:
"Most trans-men still have cervixes. Should they be allowed into woman only spaces?"
or to point out the number of places where it was only the intervention of the British or other European Empires that stopped slavery.
Zanzibar in 1896 was I believe one. As was the North African slave trade by Barbary Pirates stopped at around the same time.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Away with your Bad Facts*.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
So give me a Bad Fact.
Yes, come on, let's hear one.
Depends if we are being serious or flippant.
My current favourite Bad Fact to drop into a quiet seminar where everybody shares the same prejudices, to create general and vigorous debate would perhaps be:
"Most trans-men still have cervixes. Should they be allowed into woman only spaces?"
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
That's also my understanding. Being vaccinated makes you far less likely to catch Delta, and far less likely to pass it on or be seriously ill if you do.
That's fact, isn't it? Or is it still in play as a debating point?
What I find quite curious about this Paterson thing is that one of his supporters is Labour Party member and ex-Speaker John Bercow.
Bercow presumably knows how disciplinary procedures should occur in Parliament and he wrote, the process leading to the ban was 'indefensible' and was not 'conducted in accordance with natural justice'.
In a letter to Mr Paterson, Mr Bercow said: 'You have experienced a protracted, Kafkaesque process.'
And he said it was 'wrong and indefensible, 14 months after launching her investigation, that [Miss Stone] should write her first memorandum to you to announce that she considers you guilty of transgressions when she has not troubled to interview you', according to The Times.
Are they just old backbench buddies, so nothing should be read into Bercow's attack on Stone's conduct? Or is this actually evidence that the process has been very poorly managed?
Why am I reminded of a New York DA I met on a plane to the US?
During a rather heated discussion with another passenger over the Nat West 3, the DA remarked that the list of supporters (who published a letter in the Telegraph, IIRC) was very interesting.
As in people to look into, since they were very unhappy at the idea of tradition for trans-national financial crimes....
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
There is also real world evidence this is not the case. The inventor of the MRNA technology is certainly clear on this. The evidence that a fit and healthy person benefits on balance from taking these vaccines is very thin and I am very well read on this subject. These are not your normal flu type vaccines and the amount of intelligent people who still do not know this staggers me.
Well read from conspiracy websites it seems.
Far from it, you can provide a more original reply surely. Where is the data that fit and healthy people are a more than tiny risk from the NCIP Virus? The NHS data doesn't say so and doesn't include the obese in the pre existing condition sections.
What is the NCIP virus?
The original name of the Virus before it was changed to something that would be more catchy. NCIP actually describes the reality of the virus very well.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
There is also real world evidence this is not the case. The inventor of the MRNA technology is certainly clear on this. The evidence that a fit and healthy person benefits on balance from taking these vaccines is very thin and I am very well read on this subject. These are not your normal flu type vaccines and the amount of intelligent people who still do not know this staggers me.
Well read from conspiracy websites it seems.
Far from it, you can provide a more original reply surely. Where is the data that fit and healthy people are a more than tiny risk from the NCIP Virus? The NHS data doesn't say so and doesn't include the obese in the pre existing condition sections.
What is the NCIP virus?
The original name of the Virus before it was changed to something that would be more catchy. NCIP actually describes the reality of the virus very well.
Sorry, what? It's called "coronavirus disease 2019", because it is a coronavirus.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
That's also my understanding. Being vaccinated makes you far less likely to catch Delta, and far less likely to pass it on or be seriously ill if you do.
That's fact, isn't it? Or is it still in play as a debating point?
No it is absolutely not a fact. What it does do is stop vulnerable people (include obese in that), getting to the danger phase of the virus, by how many we will know much more at the end of the winter.
What I find quite curious about this Paterson thing is that one of his supporters is Labour Party member and ex-Speaker John Bercow.
Bercow presumably knows how disciplinary procedures should occur in Parliament and he wrote, the process leading to the ban was 'indefensible' and was not 'conducted in accordance with natural justice'.
In a letter to Mr Paterson, Mr Bercow said: 'You have experienced a protracted, Kafkaesque process.'
And he said it was 'wrong and indefensible, 14 months after launching her investigation, that [Miss Stone] should write her first memorandum to you to announce that she considers you guilty of transgressions when she has not troubled to interview you', according to The Times.
Are they just old backbench buddies, so nothing should be read into Bercow's attack on Stone's conduct? Or is this actually evidence that the process has been very poorly managed?
Why am I reminded of a New York DA I met on a plane to the US?
During a rather heated discussion with another passenger over the Nat West 3, the DA remarked that the list of supporters (who published a letter in the Telegraph, IIRC) was very interesting.
As in people to look into, since they were very unhappy at the idea of tradition for trans-national financial crimes....
Are you saying you think Bercow might be worried about Stone coming after him?
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
The Tories certainly are but none of the main parties are able to just the person in the street and what they think. Not a single one.
Nobody at Westminster but come election time the Tories on the ground at local level beat the rest, by a lot.
Where on earth do you get that 'the Tories on the ground at local level beat the rest, by a lot'. The efficiency of the parties is determined by resources they have and how they exploit them. That makes the Tories very good at the national campaign with good funding and national organisation, but the LDs are much better at the ground campaign. They have more of the lunatic campaigners, although less overall members. They have less money, so use it more efficiently locally within the spending limits.
I think it is accepted fact by most people of all parties that local campaigning is the LD strength. It is why the LDs are good at by elections when they are in with a sniff because they can suck those resources in and exploit the higher funding allowed more efficiently, but they are much less good at a national campaign and are limited in the ground they can cover so have to target more.
There's a debate to be had, but this is one-sided and the final line is silly (Javid resigns and... what? Bring back Hancock?). On the debate, some figures would be handy. How many vaccinated, how many not? How many with prior infections and so some protection? How many would leave.
Disclaimer: I've met the author and seen him present on mental health issues and drug use, he seemed nice and also sensible, but parts of this are silly; it reads as one big unfocused whinge about Javid/the Tories. You could also question whether a lecturer in mental health is an expert on health services provision...
What I find quite curious about this Paterson thing is that one of his supporters is Labour Party member and ex-Speaker John Bercow.
Bercow presumably knows how disciplinary procedures should occur in Parliament and he wrote, the process leading to the ban was 'indefensible' and was not 'conducted in accordance with natural justice'.
In a letter to Mr Paterson, Mr Bercow said: 'You have experienced a protracted, Kafkaesque process.'
And he said it was 'wrong and indefensible, 14 months after launching her investigation, that [Miss Stone] should write her first memorandum to you to announce that she considers you guilty of transgressions when she has not troubled to interview you', according to The Times.
Are they just old backbench buddies, so nothing should be read into Bercow's attack on Stone's conduct? Or is this actually evidence that the process has been very poorly managed?
Why am I reminded of a New York DA I met on a plane to the US?
During a rather heated discussion with another passenger over the Nat West 3, the DA remarked that the list of supporters (who published a letter in the Telegraph, IIRC) was very interesting.
As in people to look into, since they were very unhappy at the idea of tradition for trans-national financial crimes....
Are you saying you think Bercow might be worried about Stone coming after him?
My first thought is always - if someone is supporting someone with such a terrible case, why?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
That's also my understanding. Being vaccinated makes you far less likely to catch Delta, and far less likely to pass it on or be seriously ill if you do.
That's fact, isn't it? Or is it still in play as a debating point?
No it is absolutely not a fact. What it does do is stop vulnerable people (include obese in that), getting to the danger phase of the virus, by how many we will know much more at the end of the winter.
You need to spend less time on conspiracy websites.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
The Tories certainly are but none of the main parties are able to just the person in the street and what they think. Not a single one.
Nobody at Westminster but come election time the Tories on the ground at local level beat the rest, by a lot.
Where on earth do you get that 'the Tories on the ground at local level beat the rest, by a lot'. The efficiency of the parties is determined by resources they have and how they exploit them. That makes the Tories very good at the national campaign with good funding and national organisation, but the LDs are much better at the ground campaign. They have more of the lunatic campaigners, although less overall members. They have less money, so use it more efficiently locally within the spending limits.
I think it is accepted fact by most people of all parties that local campaigning is the LD strength. It is why the LDs are good at by elections when they are in with a sniff because they can suck those resources in and exploit the higher funding allowed more efficiently, but they are much less good at a national campaign and are limited in the ground they can cover so have to target more.
I am talking national election here, most people don't care about local elections.
Does this indicate problems for the Govt in a forthcoming by-election?
It does suggest Tice could make inroads though the Tories should hold on
Is your confidence beginning to waver a little?
No, my guess would be something like Tories 55%, Labour 28%, RefUK 10%, LDs 5%, so slightly smaller Tory majority but still a Tory hold
You aren't really able to judge how the man and woman and non-binary in the street think. You still believe your party isn't institutionally corrupt.
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
I said a 2 days ago that the impact of this would likely be back to hung parliament territory but the Tories still ahead.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
I very much doubt if this YouGov is post-Paterson. Too soon. After the weekend will be a better measure, when the Sunday papers have had their teeth in it.
The Yougov was taken peak Paterson and concluded last night, now Paterson has resigned it will die down as an issue
"Peak Patterson" isn't the issue - perceived Tory sleaze and government incompetence are - and they haven't gone away - lets see what the Sundays have instore, but I doubt they'll make fun reading for the government - the repercussions from this are far from over.
Quite. Not to mention the division in the party he has quite unnecessarily created. Why did no-one say to Paterson "Take your 30 days, there might not be a recall, but if there is you'll win, this will blow over". This is just epic, epic, mismanagement.
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
"Ms Colman, calling on behalf of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties. We've had a meeting. I know your Oscar winning career is currently approaching the stratosphere, and you could literally walk into any role you wanted, but I have an offer you simply CAN'T refuse..."
How about David Mitchell then? I would drown a bagful of kittens to see him on either side of the dispatch box at PMQs.
I have him in the Covid Dead Pool and still want to win.
I have HM the Q so if she goes with not a trace of Covid that's it, I'm out. Metaphorical ticket screwed up and tossed onto bookie's floor, head shake, mumble mumble mumble, wonder if the offie's still open ... just like the old days.
Thommo wins if LeadricT succumbs. That would be tragedy, comedy, pathos and bathos in one shocking event.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Away with your Bad Facts*.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
So give me a Bad Fact.
According to the lecturer, contradicting conspiracy theories held by minority groups is "talking down"
She actually gave the example of "AIDs is CIA biowarfare".
But, if you don't contradict that, are you not trampling all over the rights of CIA operatives (also a minority group) who claim it not to be true?
What I find quite curious about this Paterson thing is that one of his supporters is Labour Party member and ex-Speaker John Bercow.
Bercow presumably knows how disciplinary procedures should occur in Parliament and he wrote, the process leading to the ban was 'indefensible' and was not 'conducted in accordance with natural justice'.
In a letter to Mr Paterson, Mr Bercow said: 'You have experienced a protracted, Kafkaesque process.'
And he said it was 'wrong and indefensible, 14 months after launching her investigation, that [Miss Stone] should write her first memorandum to you to announce that she considers you guilty of transgressions when she has not troubled to interview you', according to The Times.
Are they just old backbench buddies, so nothing should be read into Bercow's attack on Stone's conduct? Or is this actually evidence that the process has been very poorly managed?
Why am I reminded of a New York DA I met on a plane to the US?
During a rather heated discussion with another passenger over the Nat West 3, the DA remarked that the list of supporters (who published a letter in the Telegraph, IIRC) was very interesting.
As in people to look into, since they were very unhappy at the idea of tradition for trans-national financial crimes....
Are you saying you think Bercow might be worried about Stone coming after him?
My first thought is always - if someone is supporting someone with such a terrible case, why?
Are they best mates? Is it politics?
Or is it self interest?
What's particularly funny about this is that John Bercow appears to be the current FBPE twits' favourite anti-sleaze unity candidate to stand for Paterson's seat
It's worth mentioning, I think, that the investigation into Paterson dates from October 2019, pre-Covid, and was based only on evidence up to that date.
Since then, those of us who are observant have noticed that Randox has secured some extraordinarily lucrative Covid testing contracts from the government, apparently without tendering. This has been raised in the HoC, and here's an extract from Hansard:
A contract for nearly half a billion pounds was given to Randox with no tendering process. In fact, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who was paid £100,000 a year by Randox, was party to a call to the Health Minister in the other place, Lord Bethell, when the contract was extended. That extension came after 750,000 tests had to be recalled because they were not sterile.
Although there's nothing thus far to give firm evidence of wrongdoing, it looks pretty dodgy to me. Did Paterson help Randox to secure the contract through his discussion with Lord Bethell? I wouldn't be surprised if more emerges on this, as the NAO and others are bound to return to scrutinising Covid contracts. I'm sure that's nothing to do with Paterson's resignation, of course.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
That's also my understanding. Being vaccinated makes you far less likely to catch Delta, and far less likely to pass it on or be seriously ill if you do.
That's fact, isn't it? Or is it still in play as a debating point?
No it is absolutely not a fact. What it does do is stop vulnerable people (include obese in that), getting to the danger phase of the virus, by how many we will know much more at the end of the winter.
You think it has no effect whatsoever on non-vulnerable people?
Logically, if it helps people clear the virus faster by giving their immune system a head start, this would also benefit everyone else. I.e. the same effect that prevents a vulnerable person from getting seriously ill will also reduce the amount of time that a non-vulnerable person will be infectious. Despite the difficulty of controlling for very different levels of social restrictions, the data seems to confirm this.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Away with your Bad Facts*.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
So give me a Bad Fact.
According to the lecturer, contradicting conspiracy theories held by minority groups is "talking down"
She actually gave the example of "AIDs is CIA biowarfare".
But, if you don't contradict that, are you not trampling all over the rights of CIA operatives (also a minority group) who claim it not to be true?
Claiming that a small group of *privileged people* is a "minority" was given as an example of "negative behaviour" in the seminar.
The Tories will field a clean-skin. Voters don’t like stitch-ups and gimmickry. This sleaze story can’t be relied upon to continue into any by-election.
Keir is right to steer clear.
Hmmm. Sir Keir Steerclear.
Partially agree. There are merits to the idea, but if the white suit isn't up against Paterson himself it'll feel a little like trying to blame an innocent candidate for the actions of the previous MP.
I liked the idea and am a bit disappointed to see it's not on. If you have Tory vs Anti Sleaze, this resolves to Tories = Sleaze. But that's probably a superficial analysis. I'm happy to assume Starmer knows what he's doing.
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
Olivia Colman
"Ms Colman, calling on behalf of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties. We've had a meeting. I know your Oscar winning career is currently approaching the stratosphere, and you could literally walk into any role you wanted, but I have an offer you simply CAN'T refuse..."
How about David Mitchell then? I would drown a bagful of kittens to see him on either side of the dispatch box at PMQs.
I have him in the Covid Dead Pool and still want to win.
I have HM the Q so if she goes with not a trace of Covid that's it, I'm out. Metaphorical ticket screwed up and tossed onto bookie's floor, head shake, mumble mumble mumble, wonder if the offie's still open ... just like the old days.
Thommo wins if LeadricT succumbs. That would be tragedy, comedy, pathos and bathos in one shocking event.
Fair chance of a LeadricT persona getting banned and thus 'dying' (to be quickly reincarnated under a different but similar persona) within 28 days of a postive Covid test (or indeed 28 days of any day). Does that count?
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
There is also real world evidence this is not the case. The inventor of the MRNA technology is certainly clear on this. The evidence that a fit and healthy person benefits on balance from taking these vaccines is very thin and I am very well read on this subject. These are not your normal flu type vaccines and the amount of intelligent people who still do not know this staggers me.
Well read from conspiracy websites it seems.
Far from it, you can provide a more original reply surely. Where is the data that fit and healthy people are a more than tiny risk from the NCIP Virus? The NHS data doesn't say so and doesn't include the obese in the pre existing condition sections.
What is the NCIP virus?
The original name of the Virus before it was changed to something that would be more catchy. NCIP actually describes the reality of the virus very well.
Sorry, what? It's called "coronavirus disease 2019", because it is a coronavirus.
Novel Coronavirus infected pneumonia was the original name. I don't use the other one. NCIP Virus, not as catchy that was why it was changed, along with another reason.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
There is evidence that:
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on) - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long) - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
There is also real world evidence this is not the case. The inventor of the MRNA technology is certainly clear on this. The evidence that a fit and healthy person benefits on balance from taking these vaccines is very thin and I am very well read on this subject. These are not your normal flu type vaccines and the amount of intelligent people who still do not know this staggers me.
Youtube University doesn't help.
Robert Malone was not the inventor of these vaccines. For some reason, antivaxxers and denialists try to insist he was.
Real-world information is incredibly clear that transmission and protection from these vaccines are huge. Just look around. Delta is twice as transmissible as original strain covid, the difference in restrictions from the Tier 3 and 2 era and now is colossal, yet both hospitalisation and death figures are massively low in comparison to the pre-vaccine era.
The amount of self-delusion required to believe these vaccines don't help a LOT is massive.
Comments
I see no reason why it should happen soon, even though conditions are arguably met.
ydoethur - has your boss considered a position with OFSTED?
If it looks too good to be true.....
Just read the anger of the people barraging Tory MPs with emails. All the news coverage. All the comments. There is no Corbyn bogeyman to fear, no Brexit to defend. The government has a big majority and that won't change with these by-elections. Prime opportunities for people to deploy their displeasure with a cross in the wrong box or withheld completely.
The Chief Whip stuff is so blatantly just the old trope of attacking the advisers rather than the king directly.
https://innovativegenomics.org/news/sars-cov-2-variants-infection/
The PM's shoved his todger into a Chinese finger trap, and trying to shake himself free only calls more attention to his stupidity.
What does the new post Paterson Yougov show? Back to hung parliament territory but with the Tories still ahead! That certainly suggests Old Bexley and Sidcup will be a solid Tory hold even with some leakage to RefUK
A couple of nominations have died (Phil the Greek, the Notorious RBG) but not of covid.
Downing Street has clearly treated parliament as a populist assembly, a lapdog to executive power. That 250 Tory MPs on Wednesday night, after damning dozens of ordinary MPs such as Keith Vaz and Ian Paisley for unethical behaviour, could obey Johnson’s orders to bail out his friend is, if anything, more awful than Johnson’s own decision.
I suppose it is to the credit of Tory MPs that they slept on their decision and now recognise their guilt, swiftly protesting. But what did they think they were doing?
All power corrupts, the more absolutely it grows. Johnson last year forced the resignation of the ministerial standards officer, Sir Alex Allen, by rejecting his censure of the home secretary, Priti Patel, for bullying her staff. He found himself at odds with the Electoral Commission over his use of political donations to refurbish his flat, which even his aide Dominic Cummings thought “unethical, foolish, possibly illegal”. Two years ago, Johnson had to be dragged to the supreme court and stand corrected over his refusal to recall parliament. Now he has tried effectively to sack the House of Commons parliamentary commissioner for standards, who was reportedly soon to open another inquiry into his expenses. The prime minister plainly has a dysfunctional relationship with the law.
In many countries, the national assembly would have its rights in these matters constitutionally embedded. Not in Britain. In many, there would be a role for the supreme court. Again, not in Britain. Those who share the Downing Street sofa with Boris Johnson do so unknown. Those who advise the prime minister may do so in secret, unaccountable to parliament. The result is a mess.
The main opposition party to Labour in Oxford locally is the LDs, especially in the posher bits (though the Tories did win the OxWAB seat under Cameron at parliamentary level but have since lost it to the LDs, Oxford East is strong Labour)
1. This is ONE poll. A snapshot. The question is about trend, not snapshots that make up the trend.
2. Byelections - contentious ones - do not follow either the latest poll or the trend.
It is literally laughable that you can post this with a straight face. Your party is corrupt. You personally crawled through the sewer these last few days defending the indefensible and then did what you always did when they do a u-turn and crawl in reverse saying the new position is right and was always right.
Tories may well win both by-elections. But you are in no position to make such confident statements because you have demonstrated that you have as sound a moral compass and political judgement as the PM.
At least have some humility man! "We got this wrong. In hindsight I was wrong to support it".
If EU were to retaliate by terminating TCA it is logically & legally neater in many ways. EU always said TCA is predicated on WA & Protocol so if the latter falls away so does the former. It also uses a clause in TCA rather than arguing over what is doable under A16 itself 2/...
And on the surface it sounds like a nuclear response. But is it? Nothing major would happen for 12 months, meaning limited additional pain for UK in this period. It also allows the UK to change the facts on the ground in NI in the interim. 3/
UK approach in NI would become the norm. If EU did not respond by putting any borders up, there would be 12 months of evidence that UK approach essentially works to avoid hard border. Would also likely keep most in NI happy due to very few checks & still best of both worlds 4/
So you're then faced with scenario where EU is suspending or terminating entire TCA over a situation which most of NI is likely happy with, especially business, & from which most EU states haven't felt any repercussions. Would they still want to pull down TCA in that scenario? 5/
https://twitter.com/RaoulRuparel/status/1456564238584061955?s=20
Sometime it's the issue that destroys you, other times it's the coverup.
- The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on)
- The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long)
- At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.
This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
Those of us posting on here all day and following every twist and turn via the media and social media are already up with events.
For a lot of people, the story is still spreading. For example my own local paper has just posted a website story about how the local MP voted, with comments from local opposition parties - I doubt it made the hard copy edition, out today but put to bed on Wednesday - so it may not be in the print edition until next week.
Meanwhile people will be out walking their dogs and meeting at the school gate and talking to family and friends; those that know will be commenting to those that don't. To draw a conclusion on public reaction to a political event the day afterwards is simply nuts.
But the 'national assembly' (Parliament) does have absolute rights in this matter. It is the highest court in the land and is unappealable, and unlimited in its powers. The fact that over Brexit and perhaps over this farce it has proved weak tells us about the stature of those we elect, not about our constitutional safeguards.
Parliament trumps everything, (including government). Commons trumps Lords. Electors elect Commons. Simples. Pre Brexit that truth was qualified. Now it isn't.
*I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
Viscount Simon died on 15 August 2021 and was a Labour elected hereditary peer elected by the whole house. Thus the electorate for this by-election is the whole house of lords.
It is expected that that the vacancy will be filled by a hereditary peer who will sit as a Labour peer.
There are three candidates, Lord Biddulph (Conservative), Lord Hacking (Labour), Lord Kennet (Labour).
Further details, including candidates' statements https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-information-office/2021/notice-with-candidates-list-simon.pdf
1 "Always happy to serve if requested. I have many happy memories of the House."
(vote for my happy memories!)
2 "The 2019 General Election was a disaster. If come back again to Parliament I will do all I can to focus the Party on this essential need."
(you want another "disaster"?)
3 "should be proud and humbled to be elected"
(proud AND humble?)
I think I'd vote for #3, Lord Schroedinger.
She actually gave the example of "AIDs is CIA biowarfare".
Bercow presumably knows how disciplinary procedures should occur in Parliament and he wrote, the process leading to the ban was 'indefensible' and was not 'conducted in accordance with natural justice'.
In a letter to Mr Paterson, Mr Bercow said: 'You have experienced a protracted, Kafkaesque process.'
And he said it was 'wrong and indefensible, 14 months after launching her investigation, that [Miss Stone] should write her first memorandum to you to announce that she considers you guilty of transgressions when she has not troubled to interview you', according to The Times.
Are they just old backbench buddies, so nothing should be read into Bercow's attack on Stone's conduct? Or is this actually evidence that the process has been very poorly managed?
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1456573667731771399?s=20
My current favourite Bad Fact to drop into a quiet seminar where everybody shares the same prejudices, to create general and vigorous debate would perhaps be:
"Most trans-men still have cervixes. Should they be allowed into woman only spaces?"
or to point out the number of places where it was only the intervention of the British or other European Empires that stopped slavery.
Zanzibar in 1896 was I believe one. As was the North African slave trade by Barbary Pirates stopped at around the same time.
It's "cervices".
That's fact, isn't it? Or is it still in play as a debating point?
During a rather heated discussion with another passenger over the Nat West 3, the DA remarked that the list of supporters (who published a letter in the Telegraph, IIRC) was very interesting.
As in people to look into, since they were very unhappy at the idea of tradition for trans-national financial crimes....
I think it is accepted fact by most people of all parties that local campaigning is the LD strength. It is why the LDs are good at by elections when they are in with a sniff because they can suck those resources in and exploit the higher funding allowed more efficiently, but they are much less good at a national campaign and are limited in the ground they can cover so have to target more.
https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/voices/covid-vaccine-nhs-staff-javid-b1950887.html
There's a debate to be had, but this is one-sided and the final line is silly (Javid resigns and... what? Bring back Hancock?). On the debate, some figures would be handy. How many vaccinated, how many not? How many with prior infections and so some protection? How many would leave.
Disclaimer: I've met the author and seen him present on mental health issues and drug use, he seemed nice and also sensible, but parts of this are silly; it reads as one big unfocused whinge about Javid/the Tories. You could also question whether a lecturer in mental health is an expert on health services provision...
Are they best mates? Is it politics?
Or is it self interest?
Since then, those of us who are observant have noticed that Randox has secured some extraordinarily lucrative Covid testing contracts from the government, apparently without tendering. This has been raised in the HoC, and here's an extract from Hansard:
A contract for nearly half a billion pounds was given to Randox with no tendering process. In fact, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who was paid £100,000 a year by Randox, was party to a call to the Health Minister in the other place, Lord Bethell, when the contract was extended. That extension came after 750,000 tests had to be recalled because they were not sterile.
Although there's nothing thus far to give firm evidence of wrongdoing, it looks pretty dodgy to me. Did Paterson help Randox to secure the contract through his discussion with Lord Bethell? I wouldn't be surprised if more emerges on this, as the NAO and others are bound to return to scrutinising Covid contracts. I'm sure that's nothing to do with Paterson's resignation, of course.
Logically, if it helps people clear the virus faster by giving their immune system a head start, this would also benefit everyone else. I.e. the same effect that prevents a vulnerable person from getting seriously ill will also reduce the amount of time that a non-vulnerable person will be infectious. Despite the difficulty of controlling for very different levels of social restrictions, the data seems to confirm this.
Robert Malone was not the inventor of these vaccines. For some reason, antivaxxers and denialists try to insist he was.
Real-world information is incredibly clear that transmission and protection from these vaccines are huge. Just look around. Delta is twice as transmissible as original strain covid, the difference in restrictions from the Tier 3 and 2 era and now is colossal, yet both hospitalisation and death figures are massively low in comparison to the pre-vaccine era.
The amount of self-delusion required to believe these vaccines don't help a LOT is massive.