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.
Well so am I. You used the words 'at a local level'. At a General Election I have never seen the local Tory campaign being anything like a LD campaign. The LDs are either invisible because they are not targeting it or out campaigning the Tories locally by a significant factor. The Tories rely much more on their national campaign to hold these seats (that is not to say they don't put up a good fight locally)
I take it you have never fought a LD/Tory marginal?
I am a LD who used to do just that. I would go to a LD/Tory marginal at every election and most by elections.
I think all Tories who organise their campaigns accept the LD strength is their ground game and the Tory strength is their national campaign. It is weird to think anything else.
I would accept the Tory GOTV is superior locally however.
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.
You must get some pretty confused looks when talking about that to other people, I've not heard it referred to as that once. Do you honestly believe the name was changed because it was more "catchy"? In any case, calling it pneumonia is incorrect, otherwise the only symptom of Covid would be the swelling of ones lungs. Pneumonia can be a symptom of covid, but not the only one.
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
Choosing someone from inside politics as a Man In A White Suit is a bit dumb.
Picking a former MP is, essentially, demanding a trawl through their financial dealings, while previously an MP.
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?
Are we looking for a new Clean Hands candidate?
I quite like the sound of Martin Lewis. Ticks a lot of other boxes for an anti-Boris candidate. But he's s dotcom multi-mllionaire .
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.
Oh dear. Off to Con Home the naughty step for me, then
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
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?
Rory the Tory as proposed by Rochdale yesterday should fit the bill so long as he signs a pre-nup to say he won't cross the floor for at least a week.
It is a no lose situation for Starmer, but then it seems he would rather lose anyway. I say this as someone sympathetic to Starmer. Although even accounting for his isolation he has been more than eclipsed by the Labour ladies this week.
The Labour ladies have indeed been impressive – even Raygun, who I have not traditionally been a fan of. You could see her performing the Prezza role in a feminised front bench led by Reeves, backed up PB favourites Bridget and Rosena.
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.
Oh dear. Off to Con Home the naughty step for me, then
It was at that seminar I first propounded my theory that the Green Belt is Institutionally Racist.
We were asked to come up with examples of institutional racism, in places not previously associated with it.
A fellow contractor at the bank, a Russian who'd served in the USSR military (conscript, did some funky electronic stuff apparently) giggled, and sent me a text saying I was the Political Officers Pet. Apparently in the communism seminars that the Political Officers ran in the USSR, 99% kept their heads down, but a couple of people always tried to be more Communist than the Political Officer....
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.
The best way of giving your immune system a head start is being fit and healthy, at a correct weight. I knocked this off in a day, this is the message the government has missed. They also inexplicably torpedoed the Valneva vaccine, which is much more like the traditional flu vaccine, which the MRNA stuff really isn't.
The balance for a fit and healthy person is what is likely to cause most harm the virus or the vaccine. Plus if you have immunity, why take the injections?
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.
The best way of giving your immune system a head start is being fit and healthy, at a correct weight. I knocked this off in a day, this is the message the government has missed. They also inexplicably torpedoed the Valneva vaccine, which is much more like the traditional flu vaccine, which the MRNA stuff really isn't.
The balance for a fit and healthy person is what is likely to cause most harm the virus or the vaccine. Plus if you have immunity, why take the injections?
Yes and the balance has been checked and it is the virus that does more harm.
The injections could save your life, or the life of others, that's why.
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.
Should we start calling this Patergate?
No. Its a stupid thing to do. The building was the Watergate building, so why just add gate to stuff? I know its been done, but its stupid.
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.
George Lee provides a cautionary tale for people like Martin Lewis tempted to get involved in politics.
At the time of the Great Financial Crash George Lee was RTÉ economics correspondent and became a trusted public figure on the crisis, what went wrong, and how it might not go wrong again.
He was persuaded to stand for election to the Dail for the then opposition Fine Gael and was elected a TD when FG replaced FF in government, but he then found that the party leadership didn't want to hear from him, didn't have a ministerial or other role for him and expected him to serve his time as backbench drone.
This wasn't what he expected, so he gave up politics and returned to RTÉ. Where he became science correspondent. In time for the Covid pandemic.
Two lessons from this. First, people who are prominent in non-political fields may find that they lose influence if they enter politics and should be clear about what they're getting into. Second, we should pay close attention to George Lee's next role at RTÉ - if he becomes London correspondent we should be greatly alarmed, but if he becomes Brussels correspondent then perhaps the Brexiteers will be right, and the end of the EU is nigh.
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?
Rory the Tory as proposed by Rochdale yesterday should fit the bill so long as he signs a pre-nup to say he won't cross the floor for at least a week.
It is a no lose situation for Starmer, but then it seems he would rather lose anyway. I say this as someone sympathetic to Starmer. Although even accounting for his isolation he has been more than eclipsed by the Labour ladies this week.
The Labour ladies have indeed been impressive – even Raygun, who I have not traditionally been a fan of. You could see her performing the Prezza role in a feminised front bench led by Reeves, backed up PB favourites Bridget and Rosena.
You keep omitting the best of all, Nandy.
Actually between that lot, Miliband, Ashworth, Streeting and Lammy they have a decent front bench. And a few reserves currently hiding out in select committees (Benn, Bryant etc).
The meme that “Keir is Ok but what about the rest” needs to be quashed, as does constant references to Burgon who is best considered a fringe nutcase now.
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.
Should we start calling this Patergate?
No. Its a stupid thing to do. The building was the Watergate building, so why just add gate to stuff? I know its been done, but its stupid.
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 I think that's pretty clearly the case. The issue is that too many lay people have imbibed the idea that vaccination means total immunity, which was never the case. Even with 95% protection against infection, 1 in 20 would still get it. Its like the dickhead in chief, Andrew Marr, thinking he was immune after getting two shots, then moaning about how ill he was (and yet back to work in a few days).
The Israel data locks great for boosters, and having just had my Pfizer (after two goes at AZ) I think in 10 days or so I'm going to be pretty well protected.
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?
Rory the Tory as proposed by Rochdale yesterday should fit the bill so long as he signs a pre-nup to say he won't cross the floor for at least a week.
It is a no lose situation for Starmer, but then it seems he would rather lose anyway. I say this as someone sympathetic to Starmer. Although even accounting for his isolation he has been more than eclipsed by the Labour ladies this week.
The Labour ladies have indeed been impressive – even Raygun, who I have not traditionally been a fan of. You could see her performing the Prezza role in a feminised front bench led by Reeves, backed up PB favourites Bridget and Rosena.
You keep omitting the best of all, Nandy.
Actually between that lot, Miliband, Ashworth, Streeting and Lammy they have a decent front bench. And a few reserves currently hiding out in select committees (Benn, Bryant etc).
The meme that “Keir is Ok but what about the rest” needs to be quashed, as does constant references to Burgon who is best considered a fringe nutcase now.
I absolutely agree with you about Mili, Streets and the Lamster... but Ashworth? I can't bear him. Annoying!
As for 'Bung On' Burgon – I think you are possibly confusing the last refuge of the PB Tories with the public at large. I suspect 99% of the men on the Clapham omnibus have never even heard of him!
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
ICL Lol. Ferguson is their top boy the biggest joker of the pandemic. 2015 yougov had Eddie as PM every day for 3 years proceeding the election. Then doubled down in 2016.
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
Protease inhibitor originally developed for SARS-Cov1 in 2003 and now repurposed!
The two treatments for covid that have emerged in the last few days seem like the road to the endgame, globally, in medical terms. Yet I suspect it will be many years until we lose the ridiculous psychological stigma of covid – I mean you see it even on PB, with axiomatic obsession over 'cases' and the 'perception' of the virus, rather than the reality.
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.
It's good to challenge orthodoxy with facts and evidence and reason. If an orthodoxy can't handle this it ought to be on its way out. However I have yet to come across a fact - in the true sense of the word - that cannot be uttered in this country for fear of serious repercussions to the utterer. I hear lots of hinting and moaning that such is the case but it never seems to go beyond that. But it's possible I'm being blase and this is a genuine problem, hence my request for examples. Yours here are great but they're not quite what I had in mind. Your cervix point is an elegantly subversive little send-up of the gender debate, and on the empire that's quite a common observation, how "we" prevented some evil as well as perpetrating it. The old "it's complicated and wasn't all bad" line of argument is what that is. I'd say that IS an orthodoxy actually.
"The inventor of the technology" - conspiracy theorists claim it was someone called Robert Malone, who's been active on Youtuber conspiracy sites.
Robert Malone wrote a paper in 1989, showing that RNA transcribed into mouse muscle cells could be made to transcribe proteins.
This wasn't "inventing the mRNA vaccine."
He hasn't published much or done much research in the intervening 30 years. He does, though, go on right-wing media to present conspiracy theories.
Jon Woolf (main developer of the development of the concept to synthesise mRNA in a laboratory to trigger production of a desired protein (cited over 630 times), and described in Nature as "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA"), Frédéric Martinon (developed a working mRNA vaccine in animals in 1993), and Katalin Karikó (researched the use of RNA-mediated immune activation, alongside Drew Weissman) have each got far more right to be described as "the inventor of the technology."
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.
Should we start calling this Patergate?
No. Its a stupid thing to do. The building was the Watergate building, so why just add gate to stuff? I know its been done, but its stupid.
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.
Should we start calling this Patergate?
No. Its a stupid thing to do. The building was the Watergate building, so why just add gate to stuff? I know its been done, but its stupid.
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
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?
Rory the Tory as proposed by Rochdale yesterday should fit the bill so long as he signs a pre-nup to say he won't cross the floor for at least a week.
It is a no lose situation for Starmer, but then it seems he would rather lose anyway. I say this as someone sympathetic to Starmer. Although even accounting for his isolation he has been more than eclipsed by the Labour ladies this week.
The Labour ladies have indeed been impressive – even Raygun, who I have not traditionally been a fan of. You could see her performing the Prezza role in a feminised front bench led by Reeves, backed up PB favourites Bridget and Rosena.
You keep omitting the best of all, Nandy.
Actually between that lot, Miliband, Ashworth, Streeting and Lammy they have a decent front bench. And a few reserves currently hiding out in select committees (Benn, Bryant etc).
The meme that “Keir is Ok but what about the rest” needs to be quashed, as does constant references to Burgon who is best considered a fringe nutcase now.
I absolutely agree with you about Mili, Streets and the Lamster... but Ashworth? I can't bear him. Annoying!
As for 'Bung On' Burgon – I think you are possibly confusing the last refuge of the PB Tories with the public at large. I suspect 99% of the men on the Clapham omnibus have never even heard of him!
I presume the man on the omnibus has barely even heard of Sir Keir. I am absolutely talking about the PB blockheads who say, “I’d certainly vote Labour but Keir needs to clear out all the Burgons”.
Actually, Keir simply needs to pull his own ripcord. His Corbyn clear-up mission is nearly complete and he needs to make way for a winner.
Is this the same Christian Wakeford who on top of his MPs role, stayed on for over 6 months as a councillor and on council committees earning an extra £22k per year and attending only one full council meeting and one council committee meeting over that time? Surely some mistake?
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.
The best way of giving your immune system a head start is being fit and healthy, at a correct weight. I knocked this off in a day, this is the message the government has missed. They also inexplicably torpedoed the Valneva vaccine, which is much more like the traditional flu vaccine, which the MRNA stuff really isn't.
The balance for a fit and healthy person is what is likely to cause most harm the virus or the vaccine. Plus if you have immunity, why take the injections?
I assume you have missed the stories of incredibly fit people in the their 20s and 30s who have died from this disease? I don't know what your game is here, but I suspect you are trolling. If not, read some actual science not derived from social media.
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
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.
Hang on, aren't you the one making out we have massive fraud in our postal voting system? Lots of little old ladies being told to vote Labour by hulking brutes?
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
ICL Lol. Ferguson is their top boy the biggest joker of the pandemic. 2015 yougov had Eddie as PM every day for 3 years proceeding the election. Then doubled down in 2016.
'A few weeks ago, surely England would have known that Ollie Robinson was in their thoughts. You have to go through everything. These days on Twitter, social media it's all there for everyone to see.
'You can't suddenly - why didn't they delete it - that's irrelevant. He tweeted what he had tweeted in 2012.
'Yes, he was 18 but I do find that staggering that the ECB with everything, the resources that they have in their operation, they don't go through everything about every player that you pick just to make sure you have got everything covered.'
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.
You must get some pretty confused looks when talking about that to other people, I've not heard it referred to as that once. Do you honestly believe the name was changed because it was more "catchy"? In any case, calling it pneumonia is incorrect, otherwise the only symptom of Covid would be the swelling of ones lungs. Pneumonia can be a symptom of covid, but not the only one.
I would just call it the CCP Virus to be honest but trying to take the politics away here. It is just a theory why they changed the name, yes and you are right the virus can cause the immune system to turn against the body and multi organ failure, which is the phase the vaccine is set up to protect against.
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
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.
Should we start calling this Patergate?
No. Its a stupid thing to do. The building was the Watergate building, so why just add gate to stuff? I know its been done, but its stupid.
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.
The best way of giving your immune system a head start is being fit and healthy, at a correct weight. I knocked this off in a day, this is the message the government has missed. They also inexplicably torpedoed the Valneva vaccine, which is much more like the traditional flu vaccine, which the MRNA stuff really isn't.
The balance for a fit and healthy person is what is likely to cause most harm the virus or the vaccine. Plus if you have immunity, why take the injections?
You haven't really addressed my point. The Oxford vaccine isn't based on mRNA technology so we can set aside any objections to that.
In order to tilt the balance for a fit and healthy person against taking the vaccine, are you having to rely on undiscovered future problems emerging rather than the known short-term risks like potential blood clots or myocarditis?
I'm against vaccine mandates and do think it should be a personal decision. I am also sympathetic to fit and healthy people who would rather take their chances with the virus (as long as they are responsible and don't recklessly spread it) but it isn't a rational calculation to choose that over the vaccine.
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?
We will because I'll write to the Palace and explain I need to know in order to win a prestigious internet tipping competition.
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
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.
Yes it is. Why not bugger off and troll somewhere else?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
'A few weeks ago, surely England would have known that Ollie Robinson was in their thoughts. You have to go through everything. These days on Twitter, social media it's all there for everyone to see.
'You can't suddenly - why didn't they delete it - that's irrelevant. He tweeted what he had tweeted in 2012.
'Yes, he was 18 but I do find that staggering that the ECB with everything, the resources that they have in their operation, they don't go through everything about every player that you pick just to make sure you have got everything covered.'
More to the point, it is relevant to the question of character raised by Rafiq's employment, racism and bullying claims, Yorkshire's response to it and Vaughan's own article today. He is one of my favourite players and favourite captain so I take zero pleasure in finding out more about it, but there is far more justification in going through old tweets here than there was in the Ollie Robinson case.
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).
ONS survey is out - and supports the peak in infections being around 20 October.
Infections falling, especially in secondary-age children.
Incidence amongst the oldest cohort still as flat as a pancake. So no evidence there of the effectivity of the vaccines dramatically fading over a short timescale.
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?
We will because I'll write to the Palace and explain I need to know in order to win a prestigious internet tipping competition.
Doesn't say much for the efficiency of COVID that there's still no winner
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.
It's good to challenge orthodoxy with facts and evidence and reason. If an orthodoxy can't handle this it ought to be on its way out. However I have yet to come across a fact - in the true sense of the word - that cannot be uttered in this country for fear of serious repercussions to the utterer. I hear lots of hinting and moaning that such is the case but it never seems to go beyond that. But it's possible I'm being blase and this is a genuine problem, hence my request for examples. Yours here are great but they're not quite what I had in mind. Your cervix point is an elegantly subversive little send-up of the gender debate, and on the empire that's quite a common observation, how "we" prevented some evil as well as perpetrating it. The old "it's complicated and wasn't all bad" line of argument is what that is. I'd say that IS an orthodoxy actually.
That's all fair comment.
The first is as you say being a little satirical of fixed position on an important debate. There are a lot of similar around certain other aspects of gender-based debate.
I'm not sure if a fact "in the true sense of the word" is possible. I think serious risks to the utterer have been possible around various superinjunctions, sometimes imposed by "law".
A good example in your terms might be talking about the Armenian Genocide whilst in Turkey.
Estimated peak day for new infections: 18 October.
Estimated peak day of prevalence: 23 October (always going to be delayed a few days after the peak of incidence, as this is the total of people who have been infected in the past 10-14 days or so).
Estimated peak for prevalence of infection in secondary school-aged children: 21 October, at 9.09% (so peak day for incidence would likely have been around the 16th of October)
Prevalence in secondary school children dropped by a third to 6.2% by the 30th of October.
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.
The best way of giving your immune system a head start is being fit and healthy, at a correct weight. I knocked this off in a day, this is the message the government has missed. They also inexplicably torpedoed the Valneva vaccine, which is much more like the traditional flu vaccine, which the MRNA stuff really isn't.
The balance for a fit and healthy person is what is likely to cause most harm the virus or the vaccine. Plus if you have immunity, why take the injections?
I assume you have missed the stories of incredibly fit people in the their 20s and 30s who have died from this disease? I don't know what your game is here, but I suspect you are trolling. If not, read some actual science not derived from social media.
Anecdotally, my wife's hospital right now has one person in his twenties, and one in his thirties (both unvaccinated) fighting for their lives with covid in intensive care, neither of them had any existing health issues, nor were they obese. This whole year there hasn't been a single person of any age admitted to this hospital because of complications from any kind of vaccine.
"The inventor of the technology" - conspiracy theorists claim it was someone called Robert Malone, who's been active on Youtuber conspiracy sites.
Robert Malone wrote a paper in 1989, showing that RNA transcribed into mouse muscle cells could be made to transcribe proteins.
This wasn't "inventing the mRNA vaccine."
He hasn't published much or done much research in the intervening 30 years. He does, though, go on right-wing media to present conspiracy theories.
Jon Woolf (main developer of the development of the concept to synthesise mRNA in a laboratory to trigger production of a desired protein (cited over 630 times), and described in Nature as "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA"), Frédéric Martinon (developed a working mRNA vaccine in animals in 1993), and Katalin Karikó (researched the use of RNA-mediated immune activation, alongside Drew Weissman) have each got far more right to be described as "the inventor of the technology."
So you are going the smear Robert Malone because he doesn't agree. Robert Malone was a key driver in the MRNA technology, not the only one but a key one. That is beyond question.
If you listen to what he says it makes a lot of sense, certainly backed up by hard stats about which groups have the bad outcomes overwhelmingly through this virus. He will get certain platforms denied him but that is the modern world.
ONS survey is out - and supports the peak in infections being around 20 October.
Infections falling, especially in secondary-age children.
England 1-in-50 Wales 1-in-40 NI 1-in-65 Scotland (the greatest nation on earth) 1-in-80
Is that Scotland's new official name?
I'm just reporting neutrally - no passive aggressive attempts at trying to say any one particular part of this nation is doing massively better than the others by me.
Sir Keir Stumblingblock Sir Keir Stopcock Sir Keir Stubtoe Sir Keir Sturgid Sir Keir Stuffshirt Sir Keir Stiffhead Sir Keir Strap-On Sir Keir Stoppedclock
"The inventor of the technology" - conspiracy theorists claim it was someone called Robert Malone, who's been active on Youtuber conspiracy sites.
Robert Malone wrote a paper in 1989, showing that RNA transcribed into mouse muscle cells could be made to transcribe proteins.
This wasn't "inventing the mRNA vaccine."
He hasn't published much or done much research in the intervening 30 years. He does, though, go on right-wing media to present conspiracy theories.
Jon Woolf (main developer of the development of the concept to synthesise mRNA in a laboratory to trigger production of a desired protein (cited over 630 times), and described in Nature as "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA"), Frédéric Martinon (developed a working mRNA vaccine in animals in 1993), and Katalin Karikó (researched the use of RNA-mediated immune activation, alongside Drew Weissman) have each got far more right to be described as "the inventor of the technology."
So you are going the smear Robert Malone because he doesn't agree. Robert Malone was a key driver in the MRNA technology, not the only one but a key one. That is beyond question.
If you listen to what he says it makes a lot of sense, certainly backed up by hard stats about which groups have the bad outcomes overwhelmingly through this virus. He will get certain platforms denied him but that is the modern world.
Deputy Labour leader @AngelaRayner has written to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Kathryn Stone to ask whether the PM has broken the rules by failing to declare the value of his holiday in Spain last month in the MPs’ register of financial interests. https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1456574922717794305/photo/1
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?
Are we looking for a new Clean Hands candidate?
I quite like the sound of Martin Lewis. Ticks a lot of other boxes for an anti-Boris candidate. But he's s dotcom multi-mllionaire .
Suspect HMQ is disbarred from standing?
Has it been mentioned that Martin Lewis is an LSE Government graduate? And he isn't a proper dotcom millionaire as his website is useful for ordinary people and is a net positive for society.
"The inventor of the technology" - conspiracy theorists claim it was someone called Robert Malone, who's been active on Youtuber conspiracy sites.
Robert Malone wrote a paper in 1989, showing that RNA transcribed into mouse muscle cells could be made to transcribe proteins.
This wasn't "inventing the mRNA vaccine."
He hasn't published much or done much research in the intervening 30 years. He does, though, go on right-wing media to present conspiracy theories.
Jon Woolf (main developer of the development of the concept to synthesise mRNA in a laboratory to trigger production of a desired protein (cited over 630 times), and described in Nature as "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA"), Frédéric Martinon (developed a working mRNA vaccine in animals in 1993), and Katalin Karikó (researched the use of RNA-mediated immune activation, alongside Drew Weissman) have each got far more right to be described as "the inventor of the technology."
So you are going the smear Robert Malone because he doesn't agree. Robert Malone was a key driver in the MRNA technology, not the only one but a key one. That is beyond question.
If you listen to what he says it makes a lot of sense, certainly backed up by hard stats about which groups have the bad outcomes overwhelmingly through this virus. He will get certain platforms denied him but that is the modern world.
Tell me, how do you feel about Ivermectin?
Not for me, what about you. I am very careful about what goes in my body.
Is this the same Christian Wakeford who on top of his MPs role, stayed on for over 6 months as a councillor and on council committees earning an extra £22k per year and attending only one full council meeting and one council committee meeting over that time? Surely some mistake?
You are allowed to be an MP and a Councillor. I don't see how either role gets appropriate attention if so, but you can.
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.
The best way of giving your immune system a head start is being fit and healthy, at a correct weight. I knocked this off in a day, this is the message the government has missed. They also inexplicably torpedoed the Valneva vaccine, which is much more like the traditional flu vaccine, which the MRNA stuff really isn't.
The balance for a fit and healthy person is what is likely to cause most harm the virus or the vaccine. Plus if you have immunity, why take the injections?
You haven't really addressed my point. The Oxford vaccine isn't based on mRNA technology so we can set aside any objections to that.
In order to tilt the balance for a fit and healthy person against taking the vaccine, are you having to rely on undiscovered future problems emerging rather than the known short-term risks like potential blood clots or myocarditis?
I'm against vaccine mandates and do think it should be a personal decision. I am also sympathetic to fit and healthy people who would rather take their chances with the virus (as long as they are responsible and don't recklessly spread it) but it isn't a rational calculation to choose that over the vaccine.
I understand your point about vaccine mandates, but how do you feel about mask mandates?
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?
We will because I'll write to the Palace and explain I need to know in order to win a prestigious internet tipping competition.
Doesn't say much for the efficiency of COVID that there's still no winner
No, I'd have thought it would have been won by now. Pity it doesn't have a Euromillions style racking up of the Jackpot as time passes.
"The inventor of the technology" - conspiracy theorists claim it was someone called Robert Malone, who's been active on Youtuber conspiracy sites.
Robert Malone wrote a paper in 1989, showing that RNA transcribed into mouse muscle cells could be made to transcribe proteins.
This wasn't "inventing the mRNA vaccine."
He hasn't published much or done much research in the intervening 30 years. He does, though, go on right-wing media to present conspiracy theories.
Jon Woolf (main developer of the development of the concept to synthesise mRNA in a laboratory to trigger production of a desired protein (cited over 630 times), and described in Nature as "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA"), Frédéric Martinon (developed a working mRNA vaccine in animals in 1993), and Katalin Karikó (researched the use of RNA-mediated immune activation, alongside Drew Weissman) have each got far more right to be described as "the inventor of the technology."
So you are going the smear Robert Malone because he doesn't agree. Robert Malone was a key driver in the MRNA technology, not the only one but a key one. That is beyond question.
If you listen to what he says it makes a lot of sense, certainly backed up by hard stats about which groups have the bad outcomes overwhelmingly through this virus. He will get certain platforms denied him but that is the modern world.
Not a smear.
Those are the facts of who developed what in mRNA vaccine technology.
Jon Woolf is closest to being the father of mRNA technology. Martinon the pioneer of mRNA vaccines in animals. Karikó and Weissman the parents of mRNA vaccine technology in humans. Why should Malone be listened to more than them? What, precisely, has he done in the field of human mRNA vaccine technology?
"The inventor of the technology" - conspiracy theorists claim it was someone called Robert Malone, who's been active on Youtuber conspiracy sites.
Robert Malone wrote a paper in 1989, showing that RNA transcribed into mouse muscle cells could be made to transcribe proteins.
This wasn't "inventing the mRNA vaccine."
He hasn't published much or done much research in the intervening 30 years. He does, though, go on right-wing media to present conspiracy theories.
Jon Woolf (main developer of the development of the concept to synthesise mRNA in a laboratory to trigger production of a desired protein (cited over 630 times), and described in Nature as "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA"), Frédéric Martinon (developed a working mRNA vaccine in animals in 1993), and Katalin Karikó (researched the use of RNA-mediated immune activation, alongside Drew Weissman) have each got far more right to be described as "the inventor of the technology."
So you are going the smear Robert Malone because he doesn't agree. Robert Malone was a key driver in the MRNA technology, not the only one but a key one. That is beyond question.
If you listen to what he says it makes a lot of sense, certainly backed up by hard stats about which groups have the bad outcomes overwhelmingly through this virus. He will get certain platforms denied him but that is the modern world.
"The inventor of the technology" - conspiracy theorists claim it was someone called Robert Malone, who's been active on Youtuber conspiracy sites.
Robert Malone wrote a paper in 1989, showing that RNA transcribed into mouse muscle cells could be made to transcribe proteins.
This wasn't "inventing the mRNA vaccine."
He hasn't published much or done much research in the intervening 30 years. He does, though, go on right-wing media to present conspiracy theories.
Jon Woolf (main developer of the development of the concept to synthesise mRNA in a laboratory to trigger production of a desired protein (cited over 630 times), and described in Nature as "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA"), Frédéric Martinon (developed a working mRNA vaccine in animals in 1993), and Katalin Karikó (researched the use of RNA-mediated immune activation, alongside Drew Weissman) have each got far more right to be described as "the inventor of the technology."
So you are going the smear Robert Malone because he doesn't agree. Robert Malone was a key driver in the MRNA technology, not the only one but a key one. That is beyond question.
If you listen to what he says it makes a lot of sense, certainly backed up by hard stats about which groups have the bad outcomes overwhelmingly through this virus. He will get certain platforms denied him but that is the modern world.
Seeing how they are already making deals for heavily discounted supplies to developing countries, that's another nail in the coffin of the anti-IP movement.
Michael Vaughan @MichaelVaughan Not many English people live in London.. I need to learn a new language.. 10:23 AM · Oct 15, 2010·Twitter for iPhone
Is this the same Michael Vaughan who was recently lecturing people about using "batter" instead of "batsman"?
I know Michael Vaughan and the Michael Vaughan you hear on the radio, is the Michael Vaughan trying to please the BBC bosses, not the real Michael Vaughan, who is a decent guy who did wonders as England captain.
Is this the same Christian Wakeford who on top of his MPs role, stayed on for over 6 months as a councillor and on council committees earning an extra £22k per year and attending only one full council meeting and one council committee meeting over that time? Surely some mistake?
You are allowed to be an MP and a Councillor. I don't see how either role gets appropriate attention if so, but you can.
It may be allowed but it is poor form regardless and relevant to criticising other MPs for their behaviour around outside earnings.
Michael Vaughan @MichaelVaughan Not many English people live in London.. I need to learn a new language.. 10:23 AM · Oct 15, 2010·Twitter for iPhone
Is this the same Michael Vaughan who was recently lecturing people about using "batter" instead of "batsman"?
I know Michael Vaughan and the Michael Vaughan you hear on the radio, is the Michael Vaughan trying to please the BBC bosses, not the real Michael Vaughan, who is a decent guy who did wonders as England captain.
With that character witness, I think we can take that as confirmation he should be cancelled then.
Is this the same Christian Wakeford who on top of his MPs role, stayed on for over 6 months as a councillor and on council committees earning an extra £22k per year and attending only one full council meeting and one council committee meeting over that time? Surely some mistake?
You are allowed to be an MP and a Councillor. I don't see how either role gets appropriate attention if so, but you can.
It may be allowed but it is poor form regardless and relevant to criticising other MPs for their behaviour around outside earnings.
Ben Bradley is not only MP for Mansfield but also leader of Nottinghamshire county council
Comments
I take it you have never fought a LD/Tory marginal?
I am a LD who used to do just that. I would go to a LD/Tory marginal at every election and most by elections.
I think all Tories who organise their campaigns accept the LD strength is their ground game and the Tory strength is their national campaign. It is weird to think anything else.
I would accept the Tory GOTV is superior locally however.
She's now feeling like shit.
Picking a former MP is, essentially, demanding a trawl through their financial dealings, while previously an MP.
Michael Vaughan
@MichaelVaughan
Not many English people live in London.. I need to learn a new language..
10:23 AM · Oct 15, 2010·Twitter for iPhone
I quite like the sound of Martin Lewis. Ticks a lot of other boxes for an anti-Boris candidate. But he's s dotcom multi-mllionaire
Suspect HMQ is disbarred from standing?
Or repeat your claim that yougov lack credibility.
https://patient.info/news-and-features/does-being-vaccinated-against-covid-19-stop-you-getting-infected
They say to use the conspiracy sites, but leave the MAGA ones well alone.
There are limits to what even the Zeta Reticullans will put up with.
We were asked to come up with examples of institutional racism, in places not previously associated with it.
A fellow contractor at the bank, a Russian who'd served in the USSR military (conscript, did some funky electronic stuff apparently) giggled, and sent me a text saying I was the Political Officers Pet. Apparently in the communism seminars that the Political Officers ran in the USSR, 99% kept their heads down, but a couple of people always tried to be more Communist than the Political Officer....
The balance for a fit and healthy person is what is likely to cause most harm the virus or the vaccine. Plus if you have immunity, why take the injections?
The injections could save your life, or the life of others, that's why.
At the time of the Great Financial Crash George Lee was RTÉ economics correspondent and became a trusted public figure on the crisis, what went wrong, and how it might not go wrong again.
He was persuaded to stand for election to the Dail for the then opposition Fine Gael and was elected a TD when FG replaced FF in government, but he then found that the party leadership didn't want to hear from him, didn't have a ministerial or other role for him and expected him to serve his time as backbench drone.
This wasn't what he expected, so he gave up politics and returned to RTÉ. Where he became science correspondent. In time for the Covid pandemic.
Two lessons from this. First, people who are prominent in non-political fields may find that they lose influence if they enter politics and should be clear about what they're getting into. Second, we should pay close attention to George Lee's next role at RTÉ - if he becomes London correspondent we should be greatly alarmed, but if he becomes Brussels correspondent then perhaps the Brexiteers will be right, and the end of the EU is nigh.
Actually between that lot, Miliband, Ashworth, Streeting and Lammy they have a decent front bench. And a few reserves currently hiding out in select committees (Benn, Bryant etc).
The meme that “Keir is Ok but what about the rest” needs to be quashed, as does constant references to Burgon who is best considered a fringe nutcase now.
Reuters
@Reuters
· 46m
BREAKING: Pfizer says its experimental antiviral pill cuts risk of severe COVID-19 by 89% https://reut.rs/3o0RGRF
Sek Kathiresan MD
@skathire
·
55m
Wow, antiviral pill taken within 3d of symptoms COVID: 89% reduction in hospitalization or death
Another
@pfizer
home run!
Protease inhibitor originally developed for SARS-Cov1 in 2003 and now repurposed!
The Israel data locks great for boosters, and having just had my Pfizer (after two goes at AZ) I think in 10 days or so I'm going to be pretty well protected.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/05/health/pfizer-covid-pill.html
As for 'Bung On' Burgon – I think you are possibly confusing the last refuge of the PB Tories with the public at large. I suspect 99% of the men on the Clapham omnibus have never even heard of him!
The two treatments for covid that have emerged in the last few days seem like the road to the endgame, globally, in medical terms. Yet I suspect it will be many years until we lose the ridiculous psychological stigma of covid – I mean you see it even on PB, with axiomatic obsession over 'cases' and the 'perception' of the virus, rather than the reality.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britain-secures-covid-19-antivirals-merck-pfizer-2021-10-20/
"The inventor of the technology" - conspiracy theorists claim it was someone called Robert Malone, who's been active on Youtuber conspiracy sites.
Robert Malone wrote a paper in 1989, showing that RNA transcribed into mouse muscle cells could be made to transcribe proteins.
This wasn't "inventing the mRNA vaccine."
He hasn't published much or done much research in the intervening 30 years. He does, though, go on right-wing media to present conspiracy theories.
Jon Woolf (main developer of the development of the concept to synthesise mRNA in a laboratory to trigger production of a desired protein (cited over 630 times), and described in Nature as "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA"), Frédéric Martinon (developed a working mRNA vaccine in animals in 1993), and Katalin Karikó (researched the use of RNA-mediated immune activation, alongside Drew Weissman) have each got far more right to be described as "the inventor of the technology."
Actually, Keir simply needs to pull his own ripcord. His Corbyn clear-up mission is nearly complete and he needs to make way for a winner.
Edit - I'm not being sarcastic, which it kind of looked like after I posted it!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9647413/Michael-Vaughan-STAGGERED-ECB-didnt-diligence-emergence-Ollie-Robinsons-tweets.html
'A few weeks ago, surely England would have known that Ollie Robinson was in their thoughts. You have to go through everything. These days on Twitter, social media it's all there for everyone to see.
'You can't suddenly - why didn't they delete it - that's irrelevant. He tweeted what he had tweeted in 2012.
'Yes, he was 18 but I do find that staggering that the ECB with everything, the resources that they have in their operation, they don't go through everything about every player that you pick just to make sure you have got everything covered.'
US Gov has a contract for 1.7m (5 day I think) treatment courses. At $700 each.
UK has half a million courses. Price not revealed.
https://inews.co.uk/news/sajid-javid-press-conference-covid-drugs-molnupiravir-available-nhs-avoid-plan-b-restrictions-winter-1259879
Not sure what EU are doing.
He's been accused of racism and he's gone with the "I don't have a racist bone in my body" defence.
Sir Keir Stroopwaffel
Sir Keir Stramadol
Sir Keir Straitlaced
Which best captures the ineffable tediousness of SKS?
In order to tilt the balance for a fit and healthy person against taking the vaccine, are you having to rely on undiscovered future problems emerging rather than the known short-term risks like potential blood clots or myocarditis?
I'm against vaccine mandates and do think it should be a personal decision. I am also sympathetic to fit and healthy people who would rather take their chances with the virus (as long as they are responsible and don't recklessly spread it) but it isn't a rational calculation to choose that over the vaccine.
Infections falling, especially in secondary-age children.
Wales 1-in-40
NI 1-in-65
Scotland (the greatest nation on earth) 1-in-80
The first is as you say being a little satirical of fixed position on an important debate. There are a lot of similar around certain other aspects of gender-based debate.
I'm not sure if a fact "in the true sense of the word" is possible. I think serious risks to the utterer have been possible around various superinjunctions, sometimes imposed by "law".
A good example in your terms might be talking about the Armenian Genocide whilst in Turkey.
Estimated peak day of prevalence: 23 October (always going to be delayed a few days after the peak of incidence, as this is the total of people who have been infected in the past 10-14 days or so).
Estimated peak for prevalence of infection in secondary school-aged children: 21 October, at 9.09% (so peak day for incidence would likely have been around the 16th of October)
Prevalence in secondary school children dropped by a third to 6.2% by the 30th of October.
This is good news.
If you listen to what he says it makes a lot of sense, certainly backed up by hard stats about which groups have the bad outcomes overwhelmingly through this virus. He will get certain platforms denied him but that is the modern world.
Sir Keir Stopcock
Sir Keir Stubtoe
Sir Keir Sturgid
Sir Keir Stuffshirt
Sir Keir Stiffhead
Sir Keir Strap-On
Sir Keir Stoppedclock
I am sure he is a decent human being, but he is in the wrong job.
And he isn't a proper dotcom millionaire as his website is useful for ordinary people and is a net positive for society.
Those are the facts of who developed what in mRNA vaccine technology.
Jon Woolf is closest to being the father of mRNA technology. Martinon the pioneer of mRNA vaccines in animals. Karikó and Weissman the parents of mRNA vaccine technology in humans. Why should Malone be listened to more than them? What, precisely, has he done in the field of human mRNA vaccine technology?
... at worming...
Sir Keir Stunnedmullet
Sir Keir Stuck-in-the-Mud
Sir Keir Slumper
Sir Keir Stoplight
Iirc all voted for the same candidate, Viscount Thurso, who had been in the Lords, then MP, now Lords again.