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
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
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
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
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
MP is a part time job. It really should have a part time salary.
How else do you think Ministers can do anything while still being a full time MP?
Sir Keir Strainface Sir Keir Stroopwaffel Sir Keir Stramadol Sir Keir Straitlaced
Which best captures the ineffable tediousness of SKS?
Keith.
Keith (Scottish Gaelic: Baile Chèith, or Cèith Mhaol Rubha (archaic)) is a small town in the Moray council area in north east Scotland. It has a population of 4,734.
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?
I think we always had a fairly sane approach to them here, unlike countries that mandated them outdoors as well.
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · 2h a Lib Dem official says there won't be a North Shropshire unity candidate:
"there was a scintilla of examining..an independent unity candidate of a Martin Bell nature..compliance rules & electoral legislation has changed dramatically since then making it virtually impossible"
Curious to see Starmer critics reduced to silly name calling.
This thread is a good answer to the question if you are young, smart and want to leave a positive mark on the world do you go into politics or science?
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.
"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.
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.
The AZ Vaccine does the same thing in a different way, it also isn't a flu type vaccine. I agree about reckless spread but don't agree about rational calculation.
For the avoidance of doubt if you are fat, very elderly or carrying existing serious illness you would be a fool not to take the injections.
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
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
That applies even more so to Dan Jarvis, who is now "forced" to take his mayoral salary...
"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.
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.
The AZ Vaccine does the same thing in a different way, it also isn't a flu type vaccine. I agree about reckless spread but don't agree about rational calculation.
For the avoidance of doubt if you are fat, very elderly or carrying existing serious illness you would be a fool not to take the injections.
Healthy people in their 20s have died from this. Why the feck wouldn't you take the free vaccination that might well save your life?
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
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
Oh, I dunno.
Reminds me of an old joke:
First prize is having Ben Bradley lead your council part-time.
Second prize is having Ben Bradley lead your council full-time.
'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.
No pleasure here either. This is my county. All of this is making me remember something about YCC from the past, how they used to stand alone in requiring that to play for Yorkshire you had to be born in Yorkshire. This was a matter of some pride and the source of many a jocularity along the lines of "Well if it's a boy make sure the missus isn't in Lancashire when it drops" to a bloke approaching fatherhood. But maybe what it actually was was a sign of insular exceptionalism. Reminded too of Muirfield Golf Club, the last bastion (until very recently) of male only members, 'ladies' can use the social facilities if accompanied. Similar type of thing. They fought hard to keep that. It was part of their identity.
If that Pfizer news is as good as it seems, the back of my fag packet says that reduces the CFR of Covid-19 to about 0.01%, ten times LESS lethal than flu
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.
Hmm, I dont think something allowable even if considered poor form is comparable to doing something that is not allowed, and thus prevent criticism from someone in the former position. Dual hattedness would still require care in conduct but being on multiple representative bodies is not in itself problematic the way a handout from a company, who will expect service, would be.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: Covid cases, hospitalisations & deaths on the rise again across Europe, with rates of all three metrics surpassing the UK in many countries
Starting in the west: Belgium, Netherlands & Germany in particular experiencing sharp increases in not only cases but ICU & deaths too
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.
Oh we are starting the personal abuse are we. Just because I don't agree with YOU. No he shouldn't be cancelled. he should be himself on the radio. The person that achieved so much, not the textbook BBC drone he was shaped into.
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.
One interesting consequence of these new antivirals from Merck and Pfizer is that they justify the continuation of the massive level of Covid testing.
This is because they're only effective when given in the early stages of infection. By the time the patient is unwell enough to be hospitalised it's too late for them to help. So we have to maintain widescale levels of testing to identify people who will benefit from these new treatments.
Previously there was a strong case for stopping mass-testing and only using the ONS survey to monitor the disease, and testing of hospital admissions.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
Sir Keir Strainface Sir Keir Stroopwaffel Sir Keir Stramadol Sir Keir Straitlaced
Which best captures the ineffable tediousness of SKS?
Suckier Starmer.
Not keen on this game - and it's surely not the time for it when the spotlight is rightly on the ghastliness of the person SKS is manfully trying to rescue us from.
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
Which is fecking ridiculous.
Being a cllr seems doable, as you can do pretty little (though many do a great deal) but cabinet positions are often full time or near it. I think Mike Hancock was a council cabinet member, but hes not an example of a great MP.
Easier and advisable if you dont do it at all I'd say, but permissible vs not permissible is a thing still.
If that Pfizer news is as good as it seems, the back of my fag packet says that reduces the CFR of Covid-19 to about 0.01%, ten times LESS lethal than flu
It won't matter a jot because the key with covid-19 is 'perception', not reality – I know that because I'm reminded daily of the fact, right here on PB.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
That actually sounds like @kinabalu describing himself, in total seriousness
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.
One interesting consequence of these new antivirals from Merck and Pfizer is that they justify the continuation of the massive level of Covid testing.
This is because they're only effective when given in the early stages of infection. By the time the patient is unwell enough to be hospitalised it's too late for them to help. So we have to maintain widescale levels of testing to identify people who will benefit from these new treatments.
Previously there was a strong case for stopping mass-testing and only using the ONS survey to monitor the disease, and testing of hospital admissions.
Why not just give as an antiviral to those who are vulnerable to the virus? The tests are massively flawed.
'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.
No pleasure here either. This is my county. All of this is making me remember something about YCC from the past, how they used to stand alone in requiring that to play for Yorkshire you had to be born in Yorkshire. This was a matter of some pride and the source of many a jocularity along the lines of "Well if it's a boy make sure the missus isn't in Lancashire when it drops" to a bloke approaching fatherhood. But maybe what it actually was was a sign of insular exceptionalism. Reminded too of Muirfield Golf Club, the last bastion (until very recently) of male only members, 'ladies' can use the social facilities if accompanied. Similar type of thing. They fought hard to keep that. It was part of their identity.
The irony being that the first non Yorkshire born player to play for them was a certain Michael Vaughan!
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
'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.
No pleasure here either. This is my county. All of this is making me remember something about YCC from the past, how they used to stand alone in requiring that to play for Yorkshire you had to be born in Yorkshire. This was a matter of some pride and the source of many a jocularity along the lines of "Well if it's a boy make sure the missus isn't in Lancashire when it drops" to a bloke approaching fatherhood. But maybe what it actually was was a sign of insular exceptionalism. Reminded too of Muirfield Golf Club, the last bastion (until very recently) of male only members, 'ladies' can use the social facilities if accompanied. Similar type of thing. They fought hard to keep that. It was part of their identity.
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you, that you accuse Yorkshire of insular exceptionalism.
The power derived from simultaneously leading a county council and being a backbencher must be intoxicating.
Leading a council will often be a lot more powerful as it impacts local residents than being an MP, even though they have hands tied by legislation and departmental diktat. MPs are inundated with issues they simply pass on to the council as they can do nothing, and they can rarely influence them - hence why they often bash council decisions.
'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.
No pleasure here either. This is my county. All of this is making me remember something about YCC from the past, how they used to stand alone in requiring that to play for Yorkshire you had to be born in Yorkshire. This was a matter of some pride and the source of many a jocularity along the lines of "Well if it's a boy make sure the missus isn't in Lancashire when it drops" to a bloke approaching fatherhood. But maybe what it actually was was a sign of insular exceptionalism. Reminded too of Muirfield Golf Club, the last bastion (until very recently) of male only members, 'ladies' can use the social facilities if accompanied. Similar type of thing. They fought hard to keep that. It was part of their identity.
The irony being that the first non Yorkshire born player to play for them was a certain Michael Vaughan!
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: Covid cases, hospitalisations & deaths on the rise again across Europe, with rates of all three metrics surpassing the UK in many countries
Starting in the west: Belgium, Netherlands & Germany in particular experiencing sharp increases in not only cases but ICU & deaths too
The simultaneous rise across all age groups is ominous.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
That actually sounds like @kinabalu describing himself, in total seriousness
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
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?
The evidence points stongly that way, to variable extents depending on the study. It's a bit less certain/precise than the personal protection from being vaccinated as you can't do an RCT, only observational studies and so there is more scope for unmodelled factors/bias. So you look at differing rates of infection of people in the same house as the infected vaccinated/not vaccinated person, but the housemates may have been exposed somewhere else entirely, or at the same time as the index case, so it gets a bit muddier. But the studies I have seen all point to protection on transmission, even if you get infected in the first place (which is itself reduced too).
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.
Oh we are starting the personal abuse are we. Just because I don't agree with YOU. No he shouldn't be cancelled. he should be himself on the radio. The person that achieved so much, not the textbook BBC drone he was shaped into.
If you're going to troll the site, you should be able to handle a joke.
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.
One interesting consequence of these new antivirals from Merck and Pfizer is that they justify the continuation of the massive level of Covid testing.
This is because they're only effective when given in the early stages of infection. By the time the patient is unwell enough to be hospitalised it's too late for them to help. So we have to maintain widescale levels of testing to identify people who will benefit from these new treatments.
Previously there was a strong case for stopping mass-testing and only using the ONS survey to monitor the disease, and testing of hospital admissions.
Why not just give as an antiviral to those who are vulnerable to the virus? The tests are massively flawed.
The tests are pretty good. The antivirals are expensive, and giving unnecessary medical treatment to millions of people (forever?) is an incredibly stupid idea, even by your standards.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: Covid cases, hospitalisations & deaths on the rise again across Europe, with rates of all three metrics surpassing the UK in many countries
Starting in the west: Belgium, Netherlands & Germany in particular experiencing sharp increases in not only cases but ICU & deaths too
All of Europe is going to regret not running hot in the summer and autumn. They're all going to watch as the UK avoids another lockdown because of high natural immunity and very high vaccine immunity. The worst part is that they chose the Boris/Brexit derangement path of shitting on the UK strategy without actually thinking it through. NPIs to reduce transmission in a largely vaccinated population is and exercise in displacement. When we didn't have vaccines it made sense to delay infections, now that we do it doesn't and European countries have put off their exit waves to the worst possible time or they will need tough lockdowns to further displace them into the spring. Most will choose the latter path and not have a single moment of introspection at their idiotic denouncement of (now undeniably correct) the UK strategy.
"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.
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.
The AZ Vaccine does the same thing in a different way, it also isn't a flu type vaccine. I agree about reckless spread but don't agree about rational calculation.
For the avoidance of doubt if you are fat, very elderly or carrying existing serious illness you would be a fool not to take the injections.
Healthy people in their 20s have died from this. Why the feck wouldn't you take the free vaccination that might well save your life?
Indeed.
Age and sex distribution of those in ICU in England with covid since May this year:
Also since May, proportion of those in ICU with very severe comorbidities:
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
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
MP is a part time job. It really should have a part time salary.
How else do you think Ministers can do anything while still being a full time MP?
If it were up to me I would halve the number of ministerial patronage roles, and shadows, available but in return allow ministers extra funding to hire a proxy to cover some home constituency tasks that they would otherwise do.
If that Pfizer news is as good as it seems, the back of my fag packet says that reduces the CFR of Covid-19 to about 0.01%, ten times LESS lethal than flu
"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.
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.
The AZ Vaccine does the same thing in a different way, it also isn't a flu type vaccine. I agree about reckless spread but don't agree about rational calculation.
For the avoidance of doubt if you are fat, very elderly or carrying existing serious illness you would be a fool not to take the injections.
Healthy people in their 20s have died from this. Why the feck wouldn't you take the free vaccination that might well save your life?
Have they? Without pre conditions including obesity. Looked very hard and never found, myself.
'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.
No pleasure here either. This is my county. All of this is making me remember something about YCC from the past, how they used to stand alone in requiring that to play for Yorkshire you had to be born in Yorkshire. This was a matter of some pride and the source of many a jocularity along the lines of "Well if it's a boy make sure the missus isn't in Lancashire when it drops" to a bloke approaching fatherhood. But maybe what it actually was was a sign of insular exceptionalism. Reminded too of Muirfield Golf Club, the last bastion (until very recently) of male only members, 'ladies' can use the social facilities if accompanied. Similar type of thing. They fought hard to keep that. It was part of their identity.
The irony being that the first non Yorkshire born player to play for them was a certain Michael Vaughan!
'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.
No pleasure here either. This is my county. All of this is making me remember something about YCC from the past, how they used to stand alone in requiring that to play for Yorkshire you had to be born in Yorkshire. This was a matter of some pride and the source of many a jocularity along the lines of "Well if it's a boy make sure the missus isn't in Lancashire when it drops" to a bloke approaching fatherhood. But maybe what it actually was was a sign of insular exceptionalism. Reminded too of Muirfield Golf Club, the last bastion (until very recently) of male only members, 'ladies' can use the social facilities if accompanied. Similar type of thing. They fought hard to keep that. It was part of their identity.
Yes, the birth qualification wasn't changed until 1992 - Yorkshire then immediately signed Tendulkar, and a young Lancastrian called Vaughan became eligible. However, many of us were very critical of the club even before they changed the rules because they did so little to reach out to Yorkshire-born second generation immigrants - both the Asian heritage communities centred in Bradford, and Afro-Caribbeans in Leeds and elsewhere.
If that Pfizer news is as good as it seems, the back of my fag packet says that reduces the CFR of Covid-19 to about 0.01%, ten times LESS lethal than flu
It won't matter a jot because the key with covid-19 is 'perception', not reality – I know that because I'm reminded daily of the fact, right here on PB.
I know what you mean, and the issue is that there is truth in that. For the non obsessives the death tolling by the BBC every night is a constant reminder, but should stand in stark contrast to the return to normality in the their daily lives. Fancy going to the cinema? A theatre? Join 50,000 others at the football? You can.
So there is also a cognitive dissonance, and a media who thrive on bad news who are desperate for things to get worse, for a new lockdown etc etc to give them their fix. They won't admit it, but some in the media will be lookinf forward to London Bridge falling, just for the hullabaloo that will follow.
I think that when we reach next spring, cases will have fallen, even with our ludicrous testing regime, and deaths will be much reduced (boosters plus these new medicines) then perhaps, just perhaps, we might get the end game.
I'm actually a tiny bit emosh about that Pfizer result. Probably over-reacting, but still
If it is as good as it seems, fucking hell. GET IN
It's great but it's also $700 per course so not particularly accessible to developing nations. Vaccines are still the way out of this, anti-virals can be useful for the unable to vaccinate cohort bit it's not a silver bullet like vaccines.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: Covid cases, hospitalisations & deaths on the rise again across Europe, with rates of all three metrics surpassing the UK in many countries
Starting in the west: Belgium, Netherlands & Germany in particular experiencing sharp increases in not only cases but ICU & deaths too
The simultaneous rise across all age groups is ominous.
This cannot be right. Europe has done a far better job than we have, surely, or thats what COVID Twitter says.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
That actually sounds like @kinabalu describing himself, in total seriousness
lol
Women couldn't read, of course, in 1959.
They could of course read, it was just that their uteruses/uteri would fall out if allowed to.
I'm actually a tiny bit emosh about that Pfizer result. Probably over-reacting, but still
If it is as good as it seems, fucking hell. GET IN
It's great but it's also $700 per course so not particularly accessible to developing nations. Vaccines are still the way out of this, anti-virals can be useful for the unable to vaccinate cohort bit it's not a silver bullet like vaccines.
I strongly suspect the price will come way down very quickly as these drugs are copied. Which they will be. As with the vax
"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.
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.
The AZ Vaccine does the same thing in a different way, it also isn't a flu type vaccine. I agree about reckless spread but don't agree about rational calculation.
For the avoidance of doubt if you are fat, very elderly or carrying existing serious illness you would be a fool not to take the injections.
Healthy people in their 20s have died from this. Why the feck wouldn't you take the free vaccination that might well save your life?
Have they? Without pre conditions including obesity. Looked very hard and never found, myself.
You haven't looked in the right places then. Tales of marathon runners etc have been fairly common. Yes being obese is a massive risk factor, but covid is capricious, and you cannot assume the outcome just because you believe your immune system is tip-top.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: Covid cases, hospitalisations & deaths on the rise again across Europe, with rates of all three metrics surpassing the UK in many countries
Starting in the west: Belgium, Netherlands & Germany in particular experiencing sharp increases in not only cases but ICU & deaths too
The simultaneous rise across all age groups is ominous.
This cannot be right. Europe has done a far better job than we have, surely, or thats what COVID Twitter says.
There's going to be countries across Europe going back into lockdown this winter if they don't sort this out and get going on boosters. They've squandered the chance to get natural immunity in the summer already.
No doubt would be parroted by many here Tweeting that we should go into lockdown too.
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.
One interesting consequence of these new antivirals from Merck and Pfizer is that they justify the continuation of the massive level of Covid testing.
This is because they're only effective when given in the early stages of infection. By the time the patient is unwell enough to be hospitalised it's too late for them to help. So we have to maintain widescale levels of testing to identify people who will benefit from these new treatments.
Previously there was a strong case for stopping mass-testing and only using the ONS survey to monitor the disease, and testing of hospital admissions.
Why not just give as an antiviral to those who are vulnerable to the virus? The tests are massively flawed.
The tests are pretty good. The antivirals are expensive, and giving unnecessary medical treatment to millions of people (forever?) is an incredibly stupid idea, even by your standards.
Depends on your definition of good. The Chinese flow tests have been binned in many countries, due to lack of accuracy. The PCR tests will pick up viral fragments specific to this virus but don't tell you whether the fragments are even live. So you can have a positive PCR test but have another virus live, or no virus at all.
I'm actually a tiny bit emosh about that Pfizer result. Probably over-reacting, but still
If it is as good as it seems, fucking hell. GET IN
It's great but it's also $700 per course so not particularly accessible to developing nations. Vaccines are still the way out of this, anti-virals can be useful for the unable to vaccinate cohort bit it's not a silver bullet like vaccines.
I strongly suspect the price will come way down very quickly as these drugs are copied. Which they will be. As with the vax
Anti-virals are usually fairly expensive because the manufacturing process is horribly ineffective and you need a shit load of expensive feed in materials to get just a few doses of pure enough end product. Additionally I don't see Pfizer or Merck waving their patents for these products for generics to be easily produced and distributed. Vaccines are the way out, anti-virals are a side show. Three doses of any of the three major vaccines is how we win. The government here is missing a trick by not opening up booster doses for all age groups.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
That actually sounds like @kinabalu describing himself, in total seriousness
lol
Women couldn't read, of course, in 1959.
They could of course read, it was just that their uteruses/uteri would fall out if allowed to.
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
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
That applies even more so to Dan Jarvis, who is now "forced" to take his mayoral salary...
Dan Jarvis's platform to be mayor was that, with no devolution deal agreed before the existence of the role was imposed by HMG, the role didn't have any of the powers it was supposed to and that he was going to campaign for a role with proper powers, a campaign that would be substantially located in Westminster. That dual role made some sense at the outset.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
That actually sounds like @kinabalu describing himself, in total seriousness
lol
Women couldn't read, of course, in 1959.
They could of course read, it was just that their uteruses/uteri would fall out if allowed to.
Thats just hard science, well known fact.
Suggesting otherwise is Woke and must be resisted at all costs.
I'm actually a tiny bit emosh about that Pfizer result. Probably over-reacting, but still
If it is as good as it seems, fucking hell. GET IN
It's great but it's also $700 per course so not particularly accessible to developing nations. Vaccines are still the way out of this, anti-virals can be useful for the unable to vaccinate cohort bit it's not a silver bullet like vaccines.
Even at $700 these drugs are massively cost-effective (and, as I say below, I am sure the cost will come down sharp and fast)
How much does it cost to treat a Covid sufferer in hospital for a week or two? Must be close to $700, especially if you add in THEIR lost earnings and all the other ramifications of hospitalisation on the economy
How much does it cost to treat someone in ICU for a week? That must be many thousands
In Canada the cost of ICU treatment has been estimated at $1,500 a DAY
A $700 course of drugs, even if expensive, is in fact much cheaper for everyone. I predict (if these drugs are as good as they appear) they will be widely used in developed and middle income countries with vulnerable people. It is REALLY poor countries that will go without, unless the world gets together to help them, which we must
Along with vaccines these drugs are an actual EXIT from Covid-19
"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.
'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.
No pleasure here either. This is my county. All of this is making me remember something about YCC from the past, how they used to stand alone in requiring that to play for Yorkshire you had to be born in Yorkshire. This was a matter of some pride and the source of many a jocularity along the lines of "Well if it's a boy make sure the missus isn't in Lancashire when it drops" to a bloke approaching fatherhood. But maybe what it actually was was a sign of insular exceptionalism. Reminded too of Muirfield Golf Club, the last bastion (until very recently) of male only members, 'ladies' can use the social facilities if accompanied. Similar type of thing. They fought hard to keep that. It was part of their identity.
Yes, the birth qualification wasn't changed until 1992 - Yorkshire then immediately signed Tendulkar, and a young Lancastrian called Vaughan became eligible. However, many of us were very critical of the club even before they changed the rules because they did so little to reach out to Yorkshire-born second generation immigrants - both the Asian heritage communities centred in Bradford, and Afro-Caribbeans in Leeds and elsewhere.
I remember when there was a huge bruhaha at YCCC because they'd invited John Major to unveil a monument to Len Hutton. It was regarded as simply outrageous that Major, then president of Surrey Cricket Club, should be allowed to trespass upon a Yorkshire event. The fact he was a huge cricket aficionado and former British prime minister carried no weight.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
That actually sounds like @kinabalu describing himself, in total seriousness
lol
I get the Times actually. If you really want to know I am not a good person but I strive to be. I'm full of all sorts of bias and prejudice, some trivial some less so, but I don't celebrate this in myself, I don't wallow in it, or try and justify it, I fight it. Using logic, mainly, and the core egalitarianism felt in my bones, I self-audit and progress, think clearly and progress, and the description I'd want for myself is therefore exactly this - a Clear Thinking Progressive. But as I say, I get the Times.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
With a black eye from the missus?
I always thought this delusional sense of moral and intellectual superiority was a recent affliction. It appears not.
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.
Oh we are starting the personal abuse are we. Just because I don't agree with YOU. No he shouldn't be cancelled. he should be himself on the radio. The person that achieved so much, not the textbook BBC drone he was shaped into.
If you're going to troll the site, you should be able to handle a joke.
I am not trolling anything. I just am not convinced by the MRNA Vaccines for fit and healthy people in terms of risk/reward. I haven't abused anybody, never would. If you don't agree fine, tell me why I am wrong, fine. Personal abuse, uncalled for.
Quietly it seems major change is happening in Glasgow.
AEP in positive mood for the third day in row. Unprecedented!!
"Pakistan’s climate chief Malik Aslam was effusive in his praise, saying the British had pulled an impossible rabbit out of the hat, a view widely shared among officials from the developing world at this COP26."
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
Which is fecking ridiculous.
What??? Thats bonkers. What a piss-take.
Given the social work nature of much of MPs work etc I would say that it is a completely different league to taking piles of cash for access.
Is it that different from being both an MP and a Minister? Two rather different jobs.....
EDIT: I would prefer, on balance, that double jobbing doesn't happen. But on the scale of problems effecting public life, an MP being a councillor is a 1.2 out of 10, as opposed to the current issue, which is a 6 out of 10
If that Pfizer news is as good as it seems, the back of my fag packet says that reduces the CFR of Covid-19 to about 0.01%, ten times LESS lethal than flu
It won't matter a jot because the key with covid-19 is 'perception', not reality – I know that because I'm reminded daily of the fact, right here on PB.
I know what you mean, and the issue is that there is truth in that. For the non obsessives the death tolling by the BBC every night is a constant reminder, but should stand in stark contrast to the return to normality in the their daily lives. Fancy going to the cinema? A theatre? Join 50,000 others at the football? You can.
So there is also a cognitive dissonance, and a media who thrive on bad news who are desperate for things to get worse, for a new lockdown etc etc to give them their fix. They won't admit it, but some in the media will be lookinf forward to London Bridge falling, just for the hullabaloo that will follow.
I think that when we reach next spring, cases will have fallen, even with our ludicrous testing regime, and deaths will be much reduced (boosters plus these new medicines) then perhaps, just perhaps, we might get the end game.
But thats still six months away...
Even if/when we get to that stage, there will still be calls to be "cautious" as "it can always come back". He annoys me – but perhaps @Stodge is actually right and the only thing that matters is perception. I mean, I'm a rational guy who focuses on the reality, but maybe I'm a fool for doing that, and instead should live my life in daily fear regardless of the data.
I'm actually a tiny bit emosh about that Pfizer result. Probably over-reacting, but still
If it is as good as it seems, fucking hell. GET IN
It's great but it's also $700 per course so not particularly accessible to developing nations. Vaccines are still the way out of this, anti-virals can be useful for the unable to vaccinate cohort bit it's not a silver bullet like vaccines.
I strongly suspect the price will come way down very quickly as these drugs are copied. Which they will be. As with the vax
Anti-virals are usually fairly expensive because the manufacturing process is horribly ineffective and you need a shit load of expensive feed in materials to get just a few doses of pure enough end product. Additionally I don't see Pfizer or Merck waving their patents for these products for generics to be easily produced and distributed. Vaccines are the way out, anti-virals are a side show. Three doses of any of the three major vaccines is how we win. The government here is missing a trick by not opening up booster doses for all age groups.
Merck have already licensed the drug for other manufacturers to make, and Pfizer have said they'll offer tiered pricing. And of course other anti-virals are being developed.
They could be a really useful addition to the armoury.
I'm actually a tiny bit emosh about that Pfizer result. Probably over-reacting, but still
If it is as good as it seems, fucking hell. GET IN
It's great but it's also $700 per course so not particularly accessible to developing nations. Vaccines are still the way out of this, anti-virals can be useful for the unable to vaccinate cohort bit it's not a silver bullet like vaccines.
I strongly suspect the price will come way down very quickly as these drugs are copied. Which they will be. As with the vax
Anti-virals are usually fairly expensive because the manufacturing process is horribly ineffective and you need a shit load of expensive feed in materials to get just a few doses of pure enough end product. Additionally I don't see Pfizer or Merck waving their patents for these products for generics to be easily produced and distributed. Vaccines are the way out, anti-virals are a side show. Three doses of any of the three major vaccines is how we win. The government here is missing a trick by not opening up booster doses for all age groups.
They're doing almost half a million jabs a day now again at least. Once the boosters are done (or near done) for the over 50s it should be opened up to the rest of us. I'm 39 and I'd definitely take a booster if its offered.
I'm actually a tiny bit emosh about that Pfizer result. Probably over-reacting, but still
If it is as good as it seems, fucking hell. GET IN
It's great but it's also $700 per course so not particularly accessible to developing nations. Vaccines are still the way out of this, anti-virals can be useful for the unable to vaccinate cohort bit it's not a silver bullet like vaccines.
I strongly suspect the price will come way down very quickly as these drugs are copied. Which they will be. As with the vax
Anti-virals are usually fairly expensive because the manufacturing process is horribly ineffective and you need a shit load of expensive feed in materials to get just a few doses of pure enough end product. Additionally I don't see Pfizer or Merck waving their patents for these products for generics to be easily produced and distributed. Vaccines are the way out, anti-virals are a side show. Three doses of any of the three major vaccines is how we win. The government here is missing a trick by not opening up booster doses for all age groups.
The Russians and Chinese will have their spies on this tomorrow., They will be copied
That's "bad" but also good
More maths
The UK has 250,000 doses (or courses) of this apparent Pfizer game-changer
That's £175m, at $700 a pop. Quite a lot of money. But set against the overwhelming cost of a crashed health system, or another lockdown, or 50,000 dead and 200,000 in hospital, it is fuck all
So we will have to spend £175m every winter to avoid Covid horrors? It's peanuts. We've spent 300 BILLION so far
I remember a lady who was not for turning. U turns in themselves are not a bad thing and show that the government is willing to correct mistakes. Deeply stupid behaviour, such as we have seen over the last 48 hours, is of course a different matter.
People know what corruption is. And that ain’t it.
Exactly. Boris delivered Brexit so we could kick out politicians we didn't like and not have to suffer unelected bureaucrats. I don't get why people think him having a holiday with his mates matters much.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
With a black eye from the missus?
I always thought this delusional sense of moral and intellectual superiority was a recent affliction. It appears not.
It's a very frustrating newspaper - some decent journalism, but far too much attitude with it. (Declining along with all the other papers now)
If that Pfizer news is as good as it seems, the back of my fag packet says that reduces the CFR of Covid-19 to about 0.01%, ten times LESS lethal than flu
It won't matter a jot because the key with covid-19 is 'perception', not reality – I know that because I'm reminded daily of the fact, right here on PB.
I know what you mean, and the issue is that there is truth in that. For the non obsessives the death tolling by the BBC every night is a constant reminder, but should stand in stark contrast to the return to normality in the their daily lives. Fancy going to the cinema? A theatre? Join 50,000 others at the football? You can.
So there is also a cognitive dissonance, and a media who thrive on bad news who are desperate for things to get worse, for a new lockdown etc etc to give them their fix. They won't admit it, but some in the media will be lookinf forward to London Bridge falling, just for the hullabaloo that will follow.
I think that when we reach next spring, cases will have fallen, even with our ludicrous testing regime, and deaths will be much reduced (boosters plus these new medicines) then perhaps, just perhaps, we might get the end game.
But thats still six months away...
Even if/when we get to that stage, there will still be calls to be "cautious" as "it can always come back". He annoys me – but perhaps @Stodge is actually right and the only thing that matters is perception. I mean, I'm a rational guy who focuses on the reality, but maybe I'm a fool for doing that, and instead should live my life in daily fear regardless of the data.
No no - you and I are on the same page, and its a different page to Stodge. However, he is perhaps more in touch with how some people are perceiving things right now. The big issue that many who are in favour of just a few restrictions to get case down is that its not without cost. Millions of people in England are living life pretty much as normal now. Thats why we put up with restrictions, to get to this point. I know some think that any death from covid is one too many, but they don't seem to think that about the 90% of other deaths each week.
"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.
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.
The AZ Vaccine does the same thing in a different way, it also isn't a flu type vaccine. I agree about reckless spread but don't agree about rational calculation.
For the avoidance of doubt if you are fat, very elderly or carrying existing serious illness you would be a fool not to take the injections.
Healthy people in their 20s have died from this. Why the feck wouldn't you take the free vaccination that might well save your life?
Have they? Without pre conditions including obesity. Looked very hard and never found, myself.
You haven't looked in the right places then. Tales of marathon runners etc have been fairly common. Yes being obese is a massive risk factor, but covid is capricious, and you cannot assume the outcome just because you believe your immune system is tip-top.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: Covid cases, hospitalisations & deaths on the rise again across Europe, with rates of all three metrics surpassing the UK in many countries
Starting in the west: Belgium, Netherlands & Germany in particular experiencing sharp increases in not only cases but ICU & deaths too
All of Europe is going to regret not running hot in the summer and autumn. They're all going to watch as the UK avoids another lockdown because of high natural immunity and very high vaccine immunity. The worst part is that they chose the Boris/Brexit derangement path of shitting on the UK strategy without actually thinking it through. NPIs to reduce transmission in a largely vaccinated population is and exercise in displacement. When we didn't have vaccines it made sense to delay infections, now that we do it doesn't and European countries have put off their exit waves to the worst possible time or they will need tough lockdowns to further displace them into the spring. Most will choose the latter path and not have a single moment of introspection at their idiotic denouncement of (now undeniably correct) the UK strategy.
Do the new antivirals change this calculus? If they can get hold of enough of them it would do a lot to keep people out of hospital as they go through the exit wave. Though they might need to increase testing.
I'm actually a tiny bit emosh about that Pfizer result. Probably over-reacting, but still
If it is as good as it seems, fucking hell. GET IN
It's great but it's also $700 per course so not particularly accessible to developing nations. Vaccines are still the way out of this, anti-virals can be useful for the unable to vaccinate cohort bit it's not a silver bullet like vaccines.
I strongly suspect the price will come way down very quickly as these drugs are copied. Which they will be. As with the vax
Anti-virals are usually fairly expensive because the manufacturing process is horribly ineffective and you need a shit load of expensive feed in materials to get just a few doses of pure enough end product. Additionally I don't see Pfizer or Merck waving their patents for these products for generics to be easily produced and distributed. Vaccines are the way out, anti-virals are a side show. Three doses of any of the three major vaccines is how we win. The government here is missing a trick by not opening up booster doses for all age groups.
The Russians and Chinese will have their spies on this tomorrow., They will be copied
That's "bad" but also good
More maths
The UK has 250,000 doses (or courses) of this apparent Pfizer game-changer
That's £175m, at $700 a pop. Quite a lot of money. But set against the overwhelming cost of a crashed health system, or another lockdown, or 50,000 dead and 200,000 in hospital, it is fuck all
So we will have to spend £175m every winter to avoid Covid horrors? It's peanuts. We've spent 300 BILLION so far
Most countries will be able to afford this
I agree with you that they will be a useful tool, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as you think is. As Charles has outlined the use of these needs a lot of stars to align. When they do it will prevent a lot of people from needing ICU treatment which is a huge benefit, but there will be a lot of cases where this doesn't happen. Really the silver bullet is preventing people from getting it in the first place which means giving everyone three vaccine doses and that should be the target, produce 20bn doses of vaccines in the next year.
1959 advert for the Guardian (in the Spectator) - I am certain Guardian readers still see themselves the same way! (I reckon "alert and aware, open-eyed and lively minded" is surely 1950speak for woke )
That actually sounds like @kinabalu describing himself, in total seriousness
lol
I get the Times actually. If you really want to know I am not a good person but I strive to be. I'm full of all sorts of bias and prejudice, some trivial some less so, but I don't celebrate this in myself, I don't wallow in it, or try and justify it, I fight it. Using logic, mainly, and the core egalitarianism felt in my bones, I self-audit and progress, think clearly and progress, and the description I'd want for myself is therefore exactly this - a Clear Thinking Progressive. But as I say, I get the Times.
But it doesn't just echo your description of yourself, it has your exact TONE OF VOICE
It is identical
"I am at once a man alert, open eyed and lively minded. A man who has come of age mentally. In short, a man of judgement. That's me. Kinabalu"
That's pure @kinabalu from the vanity to the pompousness to the precise, slightly fastidious use of commas
I remember a lady who was not for turning. U turns in themselves are not a bad thing and show that the government is willing to correct mistakes. Deeply stupid behaviour, such as we have seen over the last 48 hours, is of course a different matter.
I have two thoughts on this. One, I hate the carping about U-turns. If you make a mistake, then changing your mind should be encouraged. Its sensible.
Two, the current muppets in charge are making too many mistakes in the first place, even if the u-turns correct them pretty swiftly. They need some better advice, or a change at the top, or both.
People know what corruption is. And that ain’t it.
I partly agree with that. People much more often mention the uninvestigated Covid contracts, most commonly of all, and then the party donations. That's why Johnson will hugely want to avoid any momentum developing in those areas as well. A good outcome at COP26 will also distract attention from the festering problems of government culture for a while longer, and maybe keep the parties at parity.
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
Which is fecking ridiculous.
What??? Thats bonkers. What a piss-take.
It’s also a governance issue
If the council takes a decision you don’t like as a voter you can appeal to your MP to get involved. You can’t if they are the same person
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: Covid cases, hospitalisations & deaths on the rise again across Europe, with rates of all three metrics surpassing the UK in many countries
Starting in the west: Belgium, Netherlands & Germany in particular experiencing sharp increases in not only cases but ICU & deaths too
All of Europe is going to regret not running hot in the summer and autumn. They're all going to watch as the UK avoids another lockdown because of high natural immunity and very high vaccine immunity. The worst part is that they chose the Boris/Brexit derangement path of shitting on the UK strategy without actually thinking it through. NPIs to reduce transmission in a largely vaccinated population is and exercise in displacement. When we didn't have vaccines it made sense to delay infections, now that we do it doesn't and European countries have put off their exit waves to the worst possible time or they will need tough lockdowns to further displace them into the spring. Most will choose the latter path and not have a single moment of introspection at their idiotic denouncement of (now undeniably correct) the UK strategy.
Do the new antivirals change this calculus? If they can get hold of enough of them it would do a lot to keep people out of hospital as they go through the exit wave. Though they might need to increase testing.
Probably not because they are not even approved in the EU yet, and then there will be a haggling war for 6 months...
People know what corruption is. And that ain’t it.
Exactly. Boris delivered Brexit so we could kick out politicians we didn't like and not have to suffer unelected bureaucrats. I don't get why people think him having a holiday with his mates matters much.
In isolation? You're right.
But. They're being investigated for who paid for the Downing Street flat refurb and a stack of other stuff that has to be declared and wasn't / isn't. By itself that would be a minor ripple, but straight off the back of lobbygate?
How many hundreds of billions of our money are people prepared for the Tories to give to their mates?
People know what corruption is. And that ain’t it.
Boris's holiday at Chez Zac does not look corrupt until PMQs when Starmer asks how many such holidays there were before Zac was ennobled. And Boris would also be breaking the ministerial and MPs' rules on disclosure so my guess is we are being trolled.
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.
Oh we are starting the personal abuse are we. Just because I don't agree with YOU. No he shouldn't be cancelled. he should be himself on the radio. The person that achieved so much, not the textbook BBC drone he was shaped into.
If you're going to troll the site, you should be able to handle a joke.
I am not trolling anything. I just am not convinced by the MRNA Vaccines for fit and healthy people in terms of risk/reward. I haven't abused anybody, never would. If you don't agree fine, tell me why I am wrong, fine. Personal abuse, uncalled for.
It's quite interesting that virtually every hospital in the country needed to open at least one (and sometimes many) covid ward, including for paediatric patients, whilst none have had to open an vaccine-damage wards.
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
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
MP is a part time job. It really should have a part time salary.
How else do you think Ministers can do anything while still being a full time MP?
If it were up to me I would halve the number of ministerial patronage roles, and shadows, available but in return allow ministers extra funding to hire a proxy to cover some home constituency tasks that they would otherwise do.
I’d go the other way
Have a directly elected head of government (either running with a slate or on their own). Make the legislature the legislature not the government
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: Covid cases, hospitalisations & deaths on the rise again across Europe, with rates of all three metrics surpassing the UK in many countries
Starting in the west: Belgium, Netherlands & Germany in particular experiencing sharp increases in not only cases but ICU & deaths too
All of Europe is going to regret not running hot in the summer and autumn. They're all going to watch as the UK avoids another lockdown because of high natural immunity and very high vaccine immunity. The worst part is that they chose the Boris/Brexit derangement path of shitting on the UK strategy without actually thinking it through. NPIs to reduce transmission in a largely vaccinated population is and exercise in displacement. When we didn't have vaccines it made sense to delay infections, now that we do it doesn't and European countries have put off their exit waves to the worst possible time or they will need tough lockdowns to further displace them into the spring. Most will choose the latter path and not have a single moment of introspection at their idiotic denouncement of (now undeniably correct) the UK strategy.
Do the new antivirals change this calculus? If they can get hold of enough of them it would do a lot to keep people out of hospital as they go through the exit wave. Though they might need to increase testing.
I doubt they will arrive in time to stop a winter wave this year. Next year? Yes
"Bourla told CNBC in April that Pfizer’s pill could be available to Americans by the end of this year."
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
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
MP is a part time job. It really should have a part time salary.
How else do you think Ministers can do anything while still being a full time MP?
If it were up to me I would halve the number of ministerial patronage roles, and shadows, available but in return allow ministers extra funding to hire a proxy to cover some home constituency tasks that they would otherwise do.
I’d go the other way
Have a directly elected head of government (either running with a slate or on their own). Make the legislature the legislature not the government
Isn't that basically the French system but with a merged President and PM?
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
So which job does he consider worthy of being part time? Or is it both? Very disrespectful to the electorate imo.
MP is a part time job. It really should have a part time salary.
How else do you think Ministers can do anything while still being a full time MP?
If it were up to me I would halve the number of ministerial patronage roles, and shadows, available but in return allow ministers extra funding to hire a proxy to cover some home constituency tasks that they would otherwise do.
I’d go the other way
Have a directly elected head of government (either running with a slate or on their own). Make the legislature the legislature not the government
Depending on details, not particularly averse to that either, my suggestion was more making it work better within the current framework. There are lots of different options.
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
Alex Wickham
@alexwickham
·
4h
The government has made 36 U-turns in 23 months, POLITICO's
@9andrewmcdonald
has counted https://politi.co/3svJcDk
How else do you think Ministers can do anything while still being a full time MP?
@PickardJE
·
2h
a Lib Dem official says there won't be a North Shropshire unity candidate:
"there was a scintilla of examining..an independent unity candidate of a Martin Bell nature..compliance rules & electoral legislation has changed dramatically since then making it virtually impossible"
This thread is a good answer to the question if you are young, smart and want to leave a positive mark on the world do you go into politics or science?
For the avoidance of doubt if you are fat, very elderly or carrying existing serious illness you would be a fool not to take the injections.
https://order-order.com/2021/02/17/barnsley-mp-admits-hes-gone-part-time/
Although he is standing down at the next election:
https://order-order.com/2021/09/20/dan-jarvis-to-stand-down-as-south-yorkshire-mayor/
Although I acknowledge it relies on a latent snobbery toward the lower middle classes.
Reminds me of an old joke:
First prize is having Ben Bradley lead your council part-time.
Second prize is having Ben Bradley lead your council full-time.
@jburnmurdoch
NEW: Covid cases, hospitalisations & deaths on the rise again across Europe, with rates of all three metrics surpassing the UK in many countries
Starting in the west: Belgium, Netherlands & Germany in particular experiencing sharp increases in not only cases but ICU & deaths too
This is because they're only effective when given in the early stages of infection. By the time the patient is unwell enough to be hospitalised it's too late for them to help. So we have to maintain widescale levels of testing to identify people who will benefit from these new treatments.
Previously there was a strong case for stopping mass-testing and only using the ONS survey to monitor the disease, and testing of hospital admissions.
Easier and advisable if you dont do it at all I'd say, but permissible vs not permissible is a thing still.
lol
Age and sex distribution of those in ICU in England with covid since May this year:
Also since May, proportion of those in ICU with very severe comorbidities:
Cardiovascular: 0.5%
Respiratory: 1.3%
Renal: 1.6%
Liver: 0.5%
Metastatic disease: 0.6%
Haematological malignancy: 2.7%
Immunocompromised: 5.1%
(NB - as multiple comorbidities can present, you cannot just add these up)
In the real world that might be an issue.
If it is as good as it seems, fucking hell. GET IN
So there is also a cognitive dissonance, and a media who thrive on bad news who are desperate for things to get worse, for a new lockdown etc etc to give them their fix. They won't admit it, but some in the media will be lookinf forward to London Bridge falling, just for the hullabaloo that will follow.
I think that when we reach next spring, cases will have fallen, even with our ludicrous testing regime, and deaths will be much reduced (boosters plus these new medicines) then perhaps, just perhaps, we might get the end game.
But thats still six months away...
No doubt would be parroted by many here Tweeting that we should go into lockdown too.
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1456595675177787398
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/23/dan-jarvis-labour-sheffield-city-region-mayor-election
I suppose Ben Bradley could make a similar argument around the funneling of government money if he wished.
How much does it cost to treat a Covid sufferer in hospital for a week or two? Must be close to $700, especially if you add in THEIR lost earnings and all the other ramifications of hospitalisation on the economy
How much does it cost to treat someone in ICU for a week? That must be many thousands
In Canada the cost of ICU treatment has been estimated at $1,500 a DAY
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9674469/
A $700 course of drugs, even if expensive, is in fact much cheaper for everyone. I predict (if these drugs are as good as they appear) they will be widely used in developed and middle income countries with vulnerable people. It is REALLY poor countries that will go without, unless the world gets together to help them, which we must
Along with vaccines these drugs are an actual EXIT from Covid-19
People know what corruption is. And that ain’t it.
You need a lot to pieces to work
1. Patient presents with symptoms
2. Gets to medical professional
3. Gets PCR with results back
4. Takes pill
All within 72 hours
Not impossible. But not trivial.
Depending on SAE profile you could skip the results piece and start pre-emotive treatment
AEP in positive mood for the third day in row. Unprecedented!!
"Pakistan’s climate chief Malik Aslam was effusive in his praise, saying the British had pulled an impossible rabbit out of the hat, a view widely shared among officials from the developing world at this COP26."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/05/coal-power-consigned-history-glasgow/
Is it that different from being both an MP and a Minister? Two rather different jobs.....
EDIT: I would prefer, on balance, that double jobbing doesn't happen. But on the scale of problems effecting public life, an MP being a councillor is a 1.2 out of 10, as opposed to the current issue, which is a 6 out of 10
They could be a really useful addition to the armoury.
More details here:
https://www.statnews.com/2021/11/05/experimental-pfizer-pill-prevents-covid-hospitalizations-and-deaths/
That's "bad" but also good
More maths
The UK has 250,000 doses (or courses) of this apparent Pfizer game-changer
That's £175m, at $700 a pop. Quite a lot of money. But set against the overwhelming cost of a crashed health system, or another lockdown, or 50,000 dead and 200,000 in hospital, it is fuck all
So we will have to spend £175m every winter to avoid Covid horrors? It's peanuts. We've spent 300 BILLION so far
Most countries will be able to afford this
(Declining along with all the other papers now)
It is identical
"I am at once a man alert, open eyed and lively minded. A man who has come of age mentally. In short, a man of judgement. That's me. Kinabalu"
That's pure @kinabalu from the vanity to the pompousness to the precise, slightly fastidious use of commas
Two, the current muppets in charge are making too many mistakes in the first place, even if the u-turns correct them pretty swiftly. They need some better advice, or a change at the top, or both.
If the council takes a decision you don’t like as a voter you can appeal to your MP to get involved. You can’t if they are the same person
But. They're being investigated for who paid for the Downing Street flat refurb and a stack of other stuff that has to be declared and wasn't / isn't. By itself that would be a minor ripple, but straight off the back of lobbygate?
How many hundreds of billions of our money are people prepared for the Tories to give to their mates?
Have a directly elected head of government (either running with a slate or on their own). Make the legislature the legislature not the government
"Bourla told CNBC in April that Pfizer’s pill could be available to Americans by the end of this year."
So in the EU a few months later?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/pfizer-says-its-covid-pill-with-hiv-drug-cuts-the-risk-of-hospitalization-or-death-by-89percent.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=Main&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1636109162
Tho maybe they will be able to speed up and scale up the manufacturing? Charles and Max would know more about that
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/correction-22070976