Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Tories drop to 36% with YouGov – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,270
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    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.
    For me it's the combination that gets me excited. The vax is brilliant, but we al know there are fucking unvaxed idiots still able to crash the health system. I'm trying not to look at you, @DuraAce

    These pills sound like the cavalry racing in to take out the last of the virus in the antivaxxers. They won't go to hospital either, now

    And thus we achieve victory

    Unless, of course, the antivaxxers become the anti-antiviralists, as well, in which case we should oblige them to go and live in Madagascar
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING - No10 announce Boris Johnson will refuse to declare how much his freebie Spanish holiday at Zac Goldsmith's villa was worth. Story incoming
    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1456595675177787398

    If Goldsmith doesn’t rent his house out (and I assume he doesn’t) how do you get a price for it? The PM stayed with a friend. Because the friend is a minister it was disclosed. The “value” doesn’t matter
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    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.
    For me it's the combination that gets me excited. The vax is brilliant, but we al know there are fucking unvaxed idiots still able to crash the health system. I'm trying not to look at you, @DuraAce

    These pills sound like the cavalry racing in to take out the last of the virus in the antivaxxers. They won't go to hospital either, now

    And thus we achieve victory

    Unless, of course, the antivaxxers become the anti-antiviralists, as well, in which case we should oblige them to go and live in Madagascar
    We'll just tell them it's actually a combination of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine under a different name, and they'll be queueing up to take it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852
    dixiedean said:

    MattW said:

    Selebian said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Farooq said:

    DougSeal said:

    Farooq said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59167967

    Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.

    Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?

    BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
    TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
    Olivia Colman
    "Ms Colman, calling on behalf of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties. We've had a meeting. I know your Oscar winning career is currently approaching the stratosphere, and you could literally walk into any role you wanted, but I have an offer you simply CAN'T refuse..."
    How about David Mitchell then? I would drown a bagful of kittens to see him on either side of the dispatch box at PMQs.
    I have him in the Covid Dead Pool and still want to win.
    I have HM the Q so if she goes with not a trace of Covid that's it, I'm out. Metaphorical ticket screwed up and tossed onto bookie's floor, head shake, mumble mumble mumble, wonder if the offie's still open ... just like the old days.
    Thommo wins if LeadricT succumbs. That would be tragedy, comedy, pathos and bathos in one shocking event.
    Fair chance of a LeadricT persona getting banned and thus 'dying' (to be quickly reincarnated under a different but similar persona) within 28 days of a postive Covid test (or indeed 28 days of any day). Does that count?
    Are we looking for a new Clean Hands candidate?

    I quite like the sound of Martin Lewis. Ticks a lot of other boxes for an anti-Boris candidate. But he's s dotcom multi-mllionaire :smile: .

    Suspect HMQ is disbarred from standing?
    Has it been mentioned that Martin Lewis is an LSE Government graduate?
    And he isn't a proper dotcom millionaire as his website is useful for ordinary people and is a net positive for society.
    The most trusted person in the country per the survey quite recently.
  • Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING - No10 announce Boris Johnson will refuse to declare how much his freebie Spanish holiday at Zac Goldsmith's villa was worth. Story incoming
    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1456595675177787398

    If Goldsmith doesn’t rent his house out (and I assume he doesn’t) how do you get a price for it? The PM stayed with a friend. Because the friend is a minister it was disclosed. The “value” doesn’t matter
    Agreed. The value doesnt matter. Making a mate who was recently kicked out by the electorate a Minister and a Lord should have done.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620

    Good that someone is speaking up for family porn.


    Er what?!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    DavidL said:


    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    4h
    The government has made 36 U-turns in 23 months, POLITICO's
    @9andrewmcdonald
    has counted https://politi.co/3svJcDk

    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.
    Yep, that's pretty much it. They need someone to get a grip and stop the more obvious stupidity.

    Boris is pretty good at the big stuff and may well have something else to boast about from COP26 which he has clearly worked really hard on. His instincts for the lesser stuff, however, seem to have been damaged by how much trouble he has got himself both into and out of in his career.

    There is a brilliant line in Dune, about Paul's father, saying something like that he walked the cliff edge of danger for so long that he did not notice when he had fallen over it. This could happen to Boris too.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    MaxPB said:

    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.
    There are lots of different countries in Europe, so I can only comment on Germany.
    Firstly, I am not particularly aware of the German government shitting on UK strategy in terms of running hot in the summer and autumn, no doubt you can find something. Also, in general, hardly anyone here has thought much about Brexit since about 2016. It's a bit of foreign news from years ago. Like the Zika virus. It's not determining the coronavirus regulations in Nordrhein-Westphalen.

    Secondly, running hot with many millions of vulnerable people completely unvaccinated is not an easy choice to make, maybe it would have been the right choice anyway, I don't know. Even now, 15% of Germans over 60 are still unvaccinated (and more Germans are over 60). This is the far bigger problem, in my opinion, and the bigger failure. What might make sense in one place, might not make as much sense elsewhere.

    Thirdly, I think there is little chance of an "exit wave" as such in the winter, as I don't think there is much chance of current restrictions being significantly lifted until the spring. I think a tough lockdown (as in schools closing etc) is also pretty unlikely unless hospitals get overwhelmed. Hospitals are strained right now, but I guess elective surgeries will be cancelled before anyone considers a tough lockdown.

    Fourthly, if new treatments become available in the coming months, then an exercise in displacement has some worth.

    Having said all that, the federal government doesn't seem to have much of a plan, and maybe encouraging a bigger wave over the summer would have been better.

    It seems too early to say, and it would have a) taken a brave politician to follow this course given the low vaccination rates and b) required agreement from the Bundesländer unless the federal govt+parliament would have been willing to pass national laws taking power from the Bundesländer and banning them from having mask mandates/having 3g rules etc, as the restrictions in place over the summer/autumn have generally come from the Bundesländer rather than the federal government.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    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.
    For me it's the combination that gets me excited. The vax is brilliant, but we al know there are fucking unvaxed idiots still able to crash the health system. I'm trying not to look at you, @DuraAce

    These pills sound like the cavalry racing in to take out the last of the virus in the antivaxxers. They won't go to hospital either, now

    And thus we achieve victory

    Unless, of course, the antivaxxers become the anti-antiviralists, as well, in which case we should oblige them to go and live in Madagascar
    We'll just tell them it's actually a combination of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine under a different name, and they'll be queueing up to take it.
    Also mention Jiff and Hot Broth on the ingredient list.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    This may have been posted before, but the latest ONS weekly COVID servery is out,

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/5november2021

    Amongst other things it confirms the overall redaction in rates across England, that we have seen in from the numbers testing positive. (also in Scotland, and wales, with a small rise in NI)

    And form the age breakdown, level or small falls in most age groups, but a big drop in the 'School years' 7 - 11 from 9.1% to 7.5%

    At this rate in 5 weeks time there will be nobody in that age group with the virus!!! (which is off course not accurate, the fall will attenuated down, but still....)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    This could be the next big story.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061

    Does anyone actually agree with this?

    Yes.

    Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.

    Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?

    If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
    I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
    I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.

    But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
    There is evidence that:

    - The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on)
    - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long)
    - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.

    This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
    That's also my understanding. Being vaccinated makes you far less likely to catch Delta, and far less likely to pass it on or be seriously ill if you do.

    That's fact, isn't it? Or is it still in play as a debating point?
    No I think that's pretty clearly the case. The issue is that too many lay people have imbibed the idea that vaccination means total immunity, which was never the case. Even with 95% protection against infection, 1 in 20 would still get it. Its like the dickhead in chief, Andrew Marr, thinking he was immune after getting two shots, then moaning about how ill he was (and yet back to work in a few days).

    The Israel data locks great for boosters, and having just had my Pfizer (after two goes at AZ) I think in 10 days or so I'm going to be pretty well protected.
    How were your Pfizer side-effects after 2 Astras? Were they significantly different?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    Sir Keir Strainface
    Sir Keir Stroopwaffel
    Sir Keir Stramadol
    Sir Keir Straitlaced

    Which best captures the ineffable tediousness of SKS?

    Sir Keir Stumblingblock
    Sir Keir Stopcock
    Sir Keir Stubtoe
    Sir Keir Sturgid
    Sir Keir Stuffshirt
    Sir Keir Stiffhead
    Sir Keir Strap-On
    Sir Keir Stoppedclock

    Sir Keir Startlecat
    Sir Keir Stunnedmullet
    Sir Keir Stuck-in-the-Mud
    Sir Keir Slumper
    Sir Keir Stoplight

    Easy!!! His fans are so touchy that they don’t even like him being called Sir Keir
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Figure 5 on the ONS Infection report page is great, I love a good data animation. Shame it only goes back to September.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/5november2021
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    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."

    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
    It’s a little white pill 🤷‍♂️

    They won’t have got approval without the DMF locked, the CMC nailed down and the site inspected. They can ramp production fast and cheaply.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    there is a new thread but it does not seem to allow posting :(
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tory MP for Bury South Christian Wakeford walked up to Owen Paterson yesterday and called him a cunt apparently
    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1456573667731771399?s=20

    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?
    Closer to the US
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tory MP for Bury South Christian Wakeford walked up to Owen Paterson yesterday and called him a cunt apparently
    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1456573667731771399?s=20

    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.
    Problem is the payroll vote + the ambitious juniors will still be a large number
  • Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING - No10 announce Boris Johnson will refuse to declare how much his freebie Spanish holiday at Zac Goldsmith's villa was worth. Story incoming
    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1456595675177787398

    If Goldsmith doesn’t rent his house out (and I assume he doesn’t) how do you get a price for it? The PM stayed with a friend. Because the friend is a minister it was disclosed. The “value” doesn’t matter
    You get a price for Zac's villa by getting prices for similar villas. How would you get a price for a night at the Savoy without asking the Savoy? Try the Dorchester or Ritz. It will be correct within an order of magnitude.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    BigRich said:

    there is a new thread but it does not seem to allow posting :(

    Indeed. Getting some black box up.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,095

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tory MP for Bury South Christian Wakeford walked up to Owen Paterson yesterday and called him a cunt apparently
    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1456573667731771399?s=20

    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's interesting. I wonder what West Bridgford thinks of a Ripley (see Monocled Mutineer) leading the County.

    Ben Bradley is only about 32.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    BigRich said:

    This may have been posted before, but the latest ONS weekly COVID servery is out,

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/5november2021

    Amongst other things it confirms the overall redaction in rates across England, that we have seen in from the numbers testing positive. (also in Scotland, and wales, with a small rise in NI)

    And form the age breakdown, level or small falls in most age groups, but a big drop in the 'School years' 7 - 11 from 9.1% to 7.5%

    At this rate in 5 weeks time there will be nobody in that age group with the virus!!! (which is off course not accurate, the fall will attenuated down, but still....)

    Although there is more error margin, the daily prevalence rates (in the attached dataset) are even better - with school-aged children falling to 6.2% (error margins 5.07%-7.52%)

    A small drop in the 70+ category (very important and possible sign of booster effect) and a drop in the age 35-49 (parent-age) category as well.

    We need to see the 50-69 category turn around as well, but I'm increasingly confident we'll see that next week or so. At that point, the hospitalisation pressure should start to alleviate considerably.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852
    edited November 2021

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    This could be the next big story.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061

    Does anyone actually agree with this?

    Yes.

    Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.

    Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?

    If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
    I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
    I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.

    But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
    There is evidence that:

    - The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on)
    - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long)
    - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.

    This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
    Away with your Bad Facts*.

    *I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
    So give me a Bad Fact.
    According to the lecturer, contradicting conspiracy theories held by minority groups is "talking down"

    She actually gave the example of "AIDs is CIA biowarfare".
    But, if you don't contradict that, are you not trampling all over the rights of CIA operatives (also a minority group) who claim it not to be true?
    Claiming that a small group of *privileged people* is a "minority" was given as an example of "negative behaviour" in the seminar.
    Oh dear. Off to Con Home the naughty step for me, then :cry:
    It was at that seminar I first propounded my theory that the Green Belt is Institutionally Racist.

    We were asked to come up with examples of institutional racism, in places not previously associated with it.

    A fellow contractor at the bank, a Russian who'd served in the USSR military (conscript, did some funky electronic stuff apparently) giggled, and sent me a text saying I was the Political Officers Pet. Apparently in the communism seminars that the Political Officers ran in the USSR, 99% kept their heads down, but a couple of people always tried to be more Communist than the Political Officer....
    That one again. It's cute sounding but unless I'm mistaken you argue it to try and demonstrate not that the Green Belt is institutionally racist - although I'd bet my bottom dollar it is - but that "institutional racism" is a woolly term much abused by the precious types who get a rough time at your soirees. That's right, isn't it?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited November 2021

    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

    Luckily for the anti Borisers they can move on from their hopecasts of Covid getting worse and focus on Sleaze
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,270
    DavidL said:

    BigRich said:

    there is a new thread but it does not seem to allow posting :(

    Indeed. Getting some black box up.
    Likewise
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,095
    edited November 2021
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    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.
    Does anyone have a source for what the UK is paying?

    WHO or whichever body it is talking of getting the cost down to $10 a pop.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING - No10 announce Boris Johnson will refuse to declare how much his freebie Spanish holiday at Zac Goldsmith's villa was worth. Story incoming
    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1456595675177787398

    If Goldsmith doesn’t rent his house out (and I assume he doesn’t) how do you get a price for it? The PM stayed with a friend. Because the friend is a minister it was disclosed. The “value” doesn’t matter
    Agreed. The value doesnt matter. Making a mate who was recently kicked out by the electorate a Minister and a Lord should have done.
    I don’t like Goldsmith.

    But I have never encountered him professionally - according to @NickPalmer he is an effective and thoughtful minister.

    The voters of Richmond are entitled to say they don’t want Goldsmith as their MP. But if he’s a good minister why not find a way to enable that?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Good that someone is speaking up for family porn.


    Er what?!
    I’m hoping it was a typo… “family photography”…
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    New thread imminent, but comments erroring for me at the moment.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,270
    https://twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/1456597450433646598?s=20

    "The end of the pandemic at least as it relates to the United States is in sight right now," says
    @ScottGottliebMD
    . "The bottom line is we have an overwhelming toolbox right now to combat COVID."
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    Pro_Rata said:

    New thread imminent, but comments erroring for me at the moment.

    @TSE bags the first no doubt.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    This could be the next big story.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061

    Does anyone actually agree with this?

    Yes.

    Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.

    Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?

    If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
    I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
    I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.

    But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
    There is evidence that:

    - The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on)
    - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long)
    - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.

    This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
    That's also my understanding. Being vaccinated makes you far less likely to catch Delta, and far less likely to pass it on or be seriously ill if you do.

    That's fact, isn't it? Or is it still in play as a debating point?
    No I think that's pretty clearly the case. The issue is that too many lay people have imbibed the idea that vaccination means total immunity, which was never the case. Even with 95% protection against infection, 1 in 20 would still get it. Its like the dickhead in chief, Andrew Marr, thinking he was immune after getting two shots, then moaning about how ill he was (and yet back to work in a few days).

    The Israel data locks great for boosters, and having just had my Pfizer (after two goes at AZ) I think in 10 days or so I'm going to be pretty well protected.
    How were your Pfizer side-effects after 2 Astras? Were they significantly different?
    In the old quote - too early to say. (It was 9.30 this morning). I'll let you know if anything turns up later... So far so good!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    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)
    Yes, when the Indy started, and for many years, it kept a sharp line between reporting the facts and opinion pieces. It is something that has sadly gone completely out of fashion and the Guardian probably led the way amongst the broadsheets.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited November 2021
    Charles said:

    Good that someone is speaking up for family porn.


    Er what?!
    I’m hoping it was a typo… “family photography”…
    It’s so natural and normal that no one should object to it being done at a restaurant table… but it’s illegal to take a photo of it?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    edited November 2021
    kinabalu said:

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    This could be the next big story.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061

    Does anyone actually agree with this?

    Yes.

    Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.

    Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?

    If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
    I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
    I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.

    But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
    There is evidence that:

    - The chance of a selected vaccinated person becoming infected (and thus able to carry the virus) is far lower than that of a selected unvaccinated person (if you don't catch it, you can't pass it on)
    - The viral load reaches equivalent levels early on, but drops away significantly faster (remains at infectious levels about 60% as long)
    - At an equivalent viral load, vaccinated people are noticeably less infectious than unvaccinated people.

    This doesn't mean that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, but it does mean that they are a lot less likely to do so. You're looking at an order of magnitude drop in likelihood to infect someone between unvaccinated and vaccinated at a period of endemic (or, indeed, epidemic) virus levels.
    Away with your Bad Facts*.

    *I was told at a company seminar on er... modern social mores that some things are Bad Facts and should not be mentioned, since they upset various groups.
    So give me a Bad Fact.
    According to the lecturer, contradicting conspiracy theories held by minority groups is "talking down"

    She actually gave the example of "AIDs is CIA biowarfare".
    But, if you don't contradict that, are you not trampling all over the rights of CIA operatives (also a minority group) who claim it not to be true?
    Claiming that a small group of *privileged people* is a "minority" was given as an example of "negative behaviour" in the seminar.
    Oh dear. Off to Con Home the naughty step for me, then :cry:
    It was at that seminar I first propounded my theory that the Green Belt is Institutionally Racist.

    We were asked to come up with examples of institutional racism, in places not previously associated with it.

    A fellow contractor at the bank, a Russian who'd served in the USSR military (conscript, did some funky electronic stuff apparently) giggled, and sent me a text saying I was the Political Officers Pet. Apparently in the communism seminars that the Political Officers ran in the USSR, 99% kept their heads down, but a couple of people always tried to be more Communist than the Political Officer....
    That one again. It's cute sounding but unless I'm mistaken you argue it to try and demonstrate not that the Green Belt is institutionally racist - although I'd bet my bottom dollar it is - but that "institutional racism" is a woolly term much abused by the types who get a rough time at your soirees. That's right, isn't it?
    I actually got a thumbs up from the lecturer for that one. She thought it showed I really was thinking about the issues.

    Since the premise of Institutional Racism is that the outcome is the only metric, and the outcome of Green Belt policy is that people from disadvantaged minorities have worse and more expensive housing... What is the problem? Unless it is that the Green Belt policy is a "protected" one, and shouldn't have the same metric applied to it?

    EDIT: I'm actually arguing for consistency. And a fuckton of house building. Outcome based policy making does have it's place and is often useful.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Good that someone is speaking up for family porn.


    Er what?!
    I think beaches and strangers are involved in the scenario

    https://mobile.twitter.com/hwallop/status/1456536004098203650
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,270
    Pfizer shares up 11%
  • DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    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)
    Yes, when the Indy started, and for many years, it kept a sharp line between reporting the facts and opinion pieces. It is something that has sadly gone completely out of fashion and the Guardian probably led the way amongst the broadsheets.
    The Telegraph before the Guardian, arguably.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,095

    Leon said:

    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.
    By that date iirc it had been in a Tax Avoiding structure for 30 years.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING - No10 announce Boris Johnson will refuse to declare how much his freebie Spanish holiday at Zac Goldsmith's villa was worth. Story incoming
    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1456595675177787398

    If Goldsmith doesn’t rent his house out (and I assume he doesn’t) how do you get a price for it? The PM stayed with a friend. Because the friend is a minister it was disclosed. The “value” doesn’t matter
    Agreed. The value doesnt matter. Making a mate who was recently kicked out by the electorate a Minister and a Lord should have done.
    I don’t like Goldsmith.

    But I have never encountered him professionally - according to @NickPalmer he is an effective and thoughtful minister.

    The voters of Richmond are entitled to say they don’t want Goldsmith as their MP. But if he’s a good minister why not find a way to enable that?
    People keep saying that the value of Brexit and FPTP is that the voters can eject people they don't like from office.

    Using the Lords to bring them back again after they've been rejected by the voters is directly contrary to that argument.
  • NEW THREAD

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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
    Well I don't mind your style so I won't be titting for tat. I think you're better than Giles Coren. Don't understand why he's all over the place and you're in the shadows.

    So I mess up on commas then iyo? That's interesting and useful feedback. Please read my next longish one and see if I've sorted that out.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852
    edited November 2021
    isam said:

    Sir Keir Strainface
    Sir Keir Stroopwaffel
    Sir Keir Stramadol
    Sir Keir Straitlaced

    Which best captures the ineffable tediousness of SKS?

    Sir Keir Stumblingblock
    Sir Keir Stopcock
    Sir Keir Stubtoe
    Sir Keir Sturgid
    Sir Keir Stuffshirt
    Sir Keir Stiffhead
    Sir Keir Strap-On
    Sir Keir Stoppedclock

    Sir Keir Startlecat
    Sir Keir Stunnedmullet
    Sir Keir Stuck-in-the-Mud
    Sir Keir Slumper
    Sir Keir Stoplight

    Easy!!! His fans are so touchy that they don’t even like him being called Sir Keir
    That's fine unless it's in a sneery needling tone.
  • Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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 think you're missing some of the self-satirising element of kinabalu's work which is odd because you're capable of it yourself, occasionally.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING - No10 announce Boris Johnson will refuse to declare how much his freebie Spanish holiday at Zac Goldsmith's villa was worth. Story incoming
    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1456595675177787398

    If Goldsmith doesn’t rent his house out (and I assume he doesn’t) how do you get a price for it? The PM stayed with a friend. Because the friend is a minister it was disclosed. The “value” doesn’t matter
    Agreed. The value doesnt matter. Making a mate who was recently kicked out by the electorate a Minister and a Lord should have done.
    I don’t like Goldsmith.

    But I have never encountered him professionally - according to @NickPalmer he is an effective and thoughtful minister.

    The voters of Richmond are entitled to say they don’t want Goldsmith as their MP. But if he’s a good minister why not find a way to enable that?
    People keep saying that the value of Brexit and FPTP is that the voters can eject people they don't like from office.

    Using the Lords to bring them back again after they've been rejected by the voters is directly contrary to that argument.
    Is there any evidence that Lord Goldsmith has any relevant capability or experience save that he is a friend of nutnut’s?

    Yes I know he was an environmentalist, but so are all manner of trust-funded chumps.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    I wonder what the scale up and manufacture of Paxlovid will bring.

    From the bit I know, vaccine developmemt and roll out is more geared to rapid turnaround than the multistep pharmaceutical manufacture of a new active ingredient.

    The methods used to make a little of the active in the lab will be substantially unrelated to those that would be needed at scale, again perhaps moreso than for vaccines. You'd hope some parallel development would have started after early trials. A lot of the challenge may be dependent on dosage. If one batch / campaign will make 10 million pills worth of active that's a different story in terms of availability to market than if one campaign makes 100k pills worth. The former would imply fulfilling a lot of demand from one plant with perhaps less upfront optimisation but on consistent equipment, the latter may imply validation on multiple of the right types of plants, with differing vessels, control systems etc, and multiple FDA manufacturing approvals. If the manufacture is many chemical steps away from existing commercial precursors, there may also need to be deals and development work for intermediates molecules, possibly utilising other manufacturers, and which may be needed in substantially higher quantities than the final product, due to loss of yield along the way.

    If, qualitatively, the vaccine industry faced all this in getting to market (in fact these are pretty standard questions of commercialisation and supply chain), then quantitatively this could be somewhat different. I suspect also, the number of different development horses you had to be ready to cover to get an all green book on manufacturing readiness is far higher and more varied for pharmaceuticals than for vaccines.

    To summarise, how quickly supply can scale up will be at least, if not more, as live a question here as it will for vaccines.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,270
    I bring good news for all mankind

    Narcos Mexico Season 3 has just hit Netflix
This discussion has been closed.