The final lines of the headline are telling - "and then what?"
A16 supposedly pushes both parties to fix in a timely manner the issue that prompted the triggering. As we have no proposals that are viable apart from "The EU need to drop all their arguments" this is not going to be a solution.
The simple truth is that we will swing into a trade war as by far the smaller party, will get hit harder by it, will de-escalate and we all find ourselves damaged but back in the exact place we started.
The EU are not about to cave and dismantle the single market. You'd think that our side would understand that by now. Then again with the reports as to how Johnson didn't understand things like the customs union as late as last summer, probably not.
The solution is to implement the trusted trader scheme that the EU agreed to in theory, but refused to implement in practice because too many companies signed up.
If they don’t like that, they can either accept some leakage across the NI/RoI border, or police that border themselves.
Which answers how the Audi part of VW get into formula 1.
Wow, that came from nowhere!
Not happy with that. Farewell McLaren, hello Seat F1
Nah, it'll be Skoda F1.
Has amused me for years that the group that owns Porsche and Lamborghini also own Skoda.
In my youth Skodas were always known to break down a lot.
They were. It was only residual Czech engineering that made therm better than Trabants. However, they've now improved out of all recognition. I drive one. (not at the moment obvs)
Several years ago I was told that the Octavia was largely the same vehicle as the Passat and A4, the price differential was the name and the toys you could add on.
Yep. In the same way that a WV Touareg, Audi Q7, Porsche Cayenne, Bentley Bentayga and Lambo Urus are all the same car.
WV are really good at sharing technical platforms across their brands, and also really good at marketing them separately with wildly different price points.
Sad news about McLaren being bought. That's a big piece of UK automotive and racing history falling into the hands of Germany. Once again, how do foreign investors see so much value in UK companies where UK investors don't. We have a really big problem with investing in our own companies and future.
It's nothing to do with being British or German. McLaren Automotive are too small and can't survive in a niche market. The two other subscale British manufacturers have had to give up in the powertrain business and partner with tier one OEMs for engines and electronic (Aston Martin with Mercedes and JLR with BMW). There is no comparable British company to VAG which could have acquired McLaren.
At least they didn't end up with the Chinese who will end up putting the badge on fucking junk (MG, Lotus).
The thing is, I don't really care who owns this stuff. I get a bit annoyed at hearing the German or Austrian national anthems for teams based in the UK, but the reality is that the teams are still in this country. And that's what really matters.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
The final lines of the headline are telling - "and then what?"
A16 supposedly pushes both parties to fix in a timely manner the issue that prompted the triggering. As we have no proposals that are viable apart from "The EU need to drop all their arguments" this is not going to be a solution.
The simple truth is that we will swing into a trade war as by far the smaller party, will get hit harder by it, will de-escalate and we all find ourselves damaged but back in the exact place we started.
The EU are not about to cave and dismantle the single market. You'd think that our side would understand that by now. Then again with the reports as to how Johnson didn't understand things like the customs union as late as last summer, probably not.
The solution is to implement the trusted trader scheme that the EU agreed to in theory, but refused to implement in practice because too many companies signed up.
If they don’t like that, they can either accept some leakage across the NI/RoI border, or police that border themselves.
Indeed.
Trusted trader standards should be set and then every company that meets those standards should qualify for trusted trade status - with there being nothing preventing every company from becoming a trusted trader unless or until they fail to meet the standards required and get disqualified from being one.
Which answers how the Audi part of VW get into formula 1.
Wow, that came from nowhere!
Not happy with that. Farewell McLaren, hello Seat F1
Nah, it'll be Skoda F1.
Has amused me for years that the group that owns Porsche and Lamborghini also own Skoda.
In my youth Skodas were always known to break down a lot.
They were. It was only residual Czech engineering that made therm better than Trabants. However, they've now improved out of all recognition. I drive one. (not at the moment obvs)
And if Im not mistaken it was to get at the Skoda tank works that Hitler invaded Sudentenland in 1938.
Technically you mean rump Czechoslovakia really? But yes, lots of tanks and artillery too. Very substantial addition of medium tanks (by 1938 standards) for 1939-41 campaigns, and the old tanks and new ones from the same production lines were very useful chassis for self-propelled guns and artillery when the tanks became obsolete qua tanks ca. 1941-2. Industry also used for turning out aircraft, etc. The Czechs used a surprising amoint of German armour and artillery after the war - IIRC a lot of the Arab Panzer IVs in the early Israeli-Arab wars came from Czechoslovakia.
Sad news about McLaren being bought. That's a big piece of UK automotive and racing history falling into the hands of Germany. Once again, how do foreign investors see so much value in UK companies where UK investors don't. We have a really big problem with investing in our own companies and future.
It's nothing to do with being British or German. McLaren Automotive are too small and can't survive in a niche market. The two other subscale British manufacturers have had to give up in the powertrain business and partner with tier one OEMs for engines and electronic (Aston Martin with Mercedes and JLR with BMW). There is no comparable British company to VAG which could have acquired McLaren.
At least they didn't end up with the Chinese who will end up putting the badge on fucking junk (MG, Lotus).
The thing is, I don't really care who owns this stuff. I get a bit annoyed at hearing the German or Austrian national anthems for teams based in the UK, but the reality is that the teams are still in this country. And that's what really matters.
Employment for British engineers. At several levels of the meaning of the word 'engineer'.
Sad news about McLaren being bought. That's a big piece of UK automotive and racing history falling into the hands of Germany. Once again, how do foreign investors see so much value in UK companies where UK investors don't. We have a really big problem with investing in our own companies and future.
It's nothing to do with being British or German. McLaren Automotive are too small and can't survive in a niche market. The two other subscale British manufacturers have had to give up in the powertrain business and partner with tier one OEMs for engines and electronic (Aston Martin with Mercedes and JLR with BMW). There is no comparable British company to VAG which could have acquired McLaren.
At least they didn't end up with the Chinese who will end up putting the badge on fucking junk (MG, Lotus).
The thing is, I don't really care who owns this stuff. I get a bit annoyed at hearing the German or Austrian national anthems for teams based in the UK, but the reality is that the teams are still in this country. And that's what really matters.
Even the French F1 team, is based in Oxfordshire!
IIRC, the only two teams (out of 10) without significant UK presence are Ferrari and Sauber. Haas contract out most of their work to various companies around the world, but assemble everything in Banbury.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
Edit: Of course, to get something really meaningful, you still need to add in the risk of a 'typical' exposure. No idea on that - could get some guess from the ONS figures on 1 in X infected and work out how many people you see in a week, but then the infected tend to isolate.....
Another media favourite was a story on how much wasps eat. No time period or how many mentioned. As the number was not an inconsiderable number of kilogrammes I wasn't keen to meet that particular wasp as I was only slightly over its capacity. I tracked down the paper it came from which obviously had all the details. Hint: it wasn't one wasp.
The final lines of the headline are telling - "and then what?"
A16 supposedly pushes both parties to fix in a timely manner the issue that prompted the triggering. As we have no proposals that are viable apart from "The EU need to drop all their arguments" this is not going to be a solution.
The simple truth is that we will swing into a trade war as by far the smaller party, will get hit harder by it, will de-escalate and we all find ourselves damaged but back in the exact place we started.
The EU are not about to cave and dismantle the single market. You'd think that our side would understand that by now. Then again with the reports as to how Johnson didn't understand things like the customs union as late as last summer, probably not.
It really is a tiresome charade. Is a blowhard confected row with the EU going to join the 'sugary but oddly melancholic' John Lewis ad as a Christmas tradition? I do hope not.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
Edit: Of course, to get something really meaningful, you still need to add in the risk of a 'typical' exposure. No idea on that - could get some guess from the ONS figures on 1 in X infected and work out how many people you see in a week, but then the infected tend to isolate.....
Another media favourite was a story on how much wasps eat. No time period or how many mentioned. As the number was not an inconsiderable number of kilogrammes I wasn't keen to meet that particular wasp as I was only slightly over its capacity. I tracked down the paper it came from which obviously had all the details. Hint: it wasn't one wasp.
Spent a fascinating hour once watching a series of wasps (I think) slowly reducing some unwanted meat.
The final lines of the headline are telling - "and then what?"
A16 supposedly pushes both parties to fix in a timely manner the issue that prompted the triggering. As we have no proposals that are viable apart from "The EU need to drop all their arguments" this is not going to be a solution.
The simple truth is that we will swing into a trade war as by far the smaller party, will get hit harder by it, will de-escalate and we all find ourselves damaged but back in the exact place we started.
The EU are not about to cave and dismantle the single market. You'd think that our side would understand that by now. Then again with the reports as to how Johnson didn't understand things like the customs union as late as last summer, probably not.
The solution is to implement the trusted trader scheme that the EU agreed to in theory, but refused to implement in practice because too many companies signed up.
If they don’t like that, they can either accept some leakage across the NI/RoI border, or police that border themselves.
As various people have pointed out, "trusted trader" schemes are not some cover-all that apply to all traders in all sectors at all times.
I don't think they can take McLaren that far upmarket. Bugatti are in a slow motion merger with Rimac anyway.
They might try to make it a motorsport focused roadcar brand which would fit well with Lamborghini who are very much focussed on coke addicts who drive through Knightsbridge at 15mph. However Porsche are already doing that in the VAG portfolio with the GT2/GT3 at a level of competence that McLaren can only dream of.
VAG are the microsegmentation masters though so if anybody can work out a way to do it they can.
Sad news about McLaren being bought. That's a big piece of UK automotive and racing history falling into the hands of Germany. Once again, how do foreign investors see so much value in UK companies where UK investors don't. We have a really big problem with investing in our own companies and future.
It's nothing to do with being British or German. McLaren Automotive are too small and can't survive in a niche market. The two other subscale British manufacturers have had to give up in the powertrain business and partner with tier one OEMs for engines and electronic (Aston Martin with Mercedes and JLR with BMW). There is no comparable British company to VAG which could have acquired McLaren.
At least they didn't end up with the Chinese who will end up putting the badge on fucking junk (MG, Lotus).
The thing is, I don't really care who owns this stuff. I get a bit annoyed at hearing the German or Austrian national anthems for teams based in the UK, but the reality is that the teams are still in this country. And that's what really matters.
Even the French F1 team, is based in Oxfordshire!
IIRC, the only two teams (out of 10) without significant UK presence are Ferrari and Sauber. Haas contract out most of their work to various companies around the world, but assemble everything in Banbury.
Sad news about McLaren being bought. That's a big piece of UK automotive and racing history falling into the hands of Germany. Once again, how do foreign investors see so much value in UK companies where UK investors don't. We have a really big problem with investing in our own companies and future.
That latter point is massive. Me and thee don't often agree but this is precisely the point I have been making for years - we only seem to appreciate the immediate and very short term value - this quarter's profit forecast and money that can be made flogging something off.
The Germans - and us in the past prior to the 80s - recognise the long term asset and invest heavily to maintain their value. Which is how we end up owning so little and having so little control even of big strategic national assets.
Added to which, profits flow overseas which adds to our deficit, and when hard times come round, British plants are first for closure.
It feels like Johnson has moved from derision to absolute loathing
A perfect time to have as leader of the opposition a QC and ex Director of Public Prosecutions once described as the finest lawyer of his generation.
For once the stars look to be perfectly aligned.
And the time has come for Sir Keir Rodney Starmer to remove this charlatan from political life once and for all.
"someone described as the finest lawyer of his generation."
You are having a serious giraffe, mate. Those that can, prosecute. Those that can't, direct.
That's very funny and brought a welcome smile! However in the case of Sir Keir I'm assured that unlike most in his profession (and yours?) he was not motivated by lucre and preferred public service
It is one of the areas in which I have failed over the years, but @DavidL seems not to rate him
As a staunch Brexiteer and Tory fancier that doesn't surprise me. As Many Rice Davies may have said 'Cui Bono?'.
It's just the one word - saying "likely" instead of "unlikely".
Yes and how is that spin?
The UK is likely to trigger it and that's being reported across the media not just LauraK.
With the evidence before us, saying unlikely would be spin. How is saying likely spin?
It's unlikely. The "likely" is Johnson/Frost spin. And, yes, it's not just Laura parroting it, it's the whole of the punditry class. Same as they did with "Boris preparing to No Deal" at about this same time last year. We all remember that. A Not Happening Event went odds on fav would you believe. A 'licence to print' for the few astuties.
The final lines of the headline are telling - "and then what?"
A16 supposedly pushes both parties to fix in a timely manner the issue that prompted the triggering. As we have no proposals that are viable apart from "The EU need to drop all their arguments" this is not going to be a solution.
The simple truth is that we will swing into a trade war as by far the smaller party, will get hit harder by it, will de-escalate and we all find ourselves damaged but back in the exact place we started.
The EU are not about to cave and dismantle the single market. You'd think that our side would understand that by now. Then again with the reports as to how Johnson didn't understand things like the customs union as late as last summer, probably not.
The solution is to implement the trusted trader scheme that the EU agreed to in theory, but refused to implement in practice because too many companies signed up.
If they don’t like that, they can either accept some leakage across the NI/RoI border, or police that border themselves.
As various people have pointed out, "trusted trader" schemes are not some cover-all that apply to all traders in all sectors at all times.
Why not? The more the merrier, surely. It's almost as if the saintly EU wants to restrict competition.
The yummy mummies have been out dog-walking and coffee drinking this morning.
Our dog got given a "puppy-cino" - which is frothed milk over dog biscuits.
I'm not joking.
I know dogs are omnivorous, although primarily carnivores, but is that actually good for a dog?
I wondered the same thing. She seemed to enjoy it, apparently. A dog's tactic seems to be to eat anything it's possible to swallow and sick it up later if need-be.
The final lines of the headline are telling - "and then what?"
A16 supposedly pushes both parties to fix in a timely manner the issue that prompted the triggering. As we have no proposals that are viable apart from "The EU need to drop all their arguments" this is not going to be a solution.
The simple truth is that we will swing into a trade war as by far the smaller party, will get hit harder by it, will de-escalate and we all find ourselves damaged but back in the exact place we started.
The EU are not about to cave and dismantle the single market. You'd think that our side would understand that by now. Then again with the reports as to how Johnson didn't understand things like the customs union as late as last summer, probably not.
The solution is to implement the trusted trader scheme that the EU agreed to in theory, but refused to implement in practice because too many companies signed up.
If they don’t like that, they can either accept some leakage across the NI/RoI border, or police that border themselves.
As various people have pointed out, "trusted trader" schemes are not some cover-all that apply to all traders in all sectors at all times.
Why not?
So long as those traders meet the predetermined terms and conditions of the scheme, why can't they all be trusted?
The man's motivation was "yet to be understood", he said (Head of Counter Terrorism Policing North West Russ Jackson)
Surely a “terror incident” assumes a terrorising intent? It’s clear as mud.
Does it? Terrorism is creating terror. It appears that he had an explosive device attached to him. Asked to be taken to the Remembrance event. Then the city centre. Then the hospital.
Why he intended to create terror by detonation of his explosive may not be known. That he intended to do so is clearly known...
It's just the one word - saying "likely" instead of "unlikely".
Yes and how is that spin?
The UK is likely to trigger it and that's being reported across the media not just LauraK.
With the evidence before us, saying unlikely would be spin. How is saying likely spin?
It's unlikely. The "likely" is Johnson/Frost spin. And, yes, it's not just Laura parroting it, it's the whole of the punditry class. Same as they did with "Boris preparing to No Deal" at about this same time last year. We all remember that. A Not Happening Event went odds on fav would you believe. A 'licence to print' for the few astuties.
The only reason it'd be unlikely is if the EU cave on all the UK's demands, just as they did this time last year.
Which is quite probable. But the EU only caved last year because the UK was prepared to No Deal and its the same again this time.
Being prepared to go all in can force the other player off.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Gosh I couldn't have stood that. I'm having mine at a little wheelie hut just off the high street so it should be a quick in and out.
I was fortunate enough to have a private tour of the factory in 2009. If that lot ends up in the USA, it will be an utter disgrace.
I worked on a project there many years ago. It was a wonderful experience, though somewhat less luxurious in the actual office areas where the only coffee was watery plastic cup machine fare
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Gosh I couldn't have stood that. I'm having mine at a little wheelie hut just off the high street so it should be a quick in and out.
I shouldn't have, but the sunk cost fallacy got to me.
Having done a little reading into the Shapps story from yesterday, it looks like toast now or toast later.
Why?
I admit to having hardly read in detail, but I can’t see what he’s done wrong.
The criticism seems to be that he’s lobbied in favour of amateur flyers, but so what? In what way (for example) is this different from Boris pushing policy in favour of cyclists?
General aviation has been getting a kicking from authorities for decades, whether it’s expanding controlled airspace, increased licensing requirements or the various fees charged by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority, or Campaign Against Aviation as pilots call them) - it’s great to see one person close to government prepared to stand up for GA, recreational and sporting flyers.
And no, Daily Mail, £100k doesn’t buy you a “Private Jet”, it gets you a share in a four seat, propellor-driven Cessna if you’re lucky.
Shares are much cheaper than that, although of course you have to factor in the monthly costs, contributions to the engine fund and the hourly rate for use to get an idea of how much it would cost in total. But 100k would be ample for say a modest amount of flying over ten years' with a share in an entry level Cessna or PA28. Assuming you already have a licence, of course.
Of course, a share in an old C172 or PA28 comes in even cheaper, which is the way that most GA pilots go.
Or a share in a microlight (which also uses private airfields and gets access to the 50%-up-to-£250 safety grant for electronic conspicuity in ever-more-congested airspace.
Here's my "private jet." One fifth share was £4k, and running costs are £55 per month plus unleaded petrol.
The man's motivation was "yet to be understood", he said (Head of Counter Terrorism Policing North West Russ Jackson)
Surely a “terror incident” assumes a terrorising intent? It’s clear as mud.
But which flavour of terrorising intent ?
Militant islamism, anti-abortion, anti-vaccination, far right ?
Suicide jacket and intending to attack a Remembrance Service.
Only one of those is probable.
We no longer know if the intended target was a Remembrance Service - that bit is unclear.
I thought the taxi driver had confirmed that was the original destination?
That's what was reported earlier, that part of what alerted the driver that it was suspicious is that once he couldn't get to the Service the terrorist kept changing destinations eventually deciding upon the hospital.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Gosh I couldn't have stood that. I'm having mine at a little wheelie hut just off the high street so it should be a quick in and out.
I queued outside for mine and that was fine but when they told me sit down in the waiting room for fifteen minutes afterwards I took one look at all the oldies gathered there and legged it.
You will be glad to hear I made the five minute walk home without keeling over.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Gosh I couldn't have stood that. I'm having mine at a little wheelie hut just off the high street so it should be a quick in and out.
Our booster last week was in a specialist site, a football stadium, and it's difficult to think how it could have been quicker or more efficient. We were booked for 9.50 and were back in the car, all done by 10.20. And that includes a few minutes walk to and from the car.
I tell you what, though, with the definition of "private jet" used in these reports, plus the reports of Boris Johnson taking a private jet down from COP26 to London, you have to think: I guess there's a reason he looks a bit crumples and tousled.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Gosh I couldn't have stood that. I'm having mine at a little wheelie hut just off the high street so it should be a quick in and out.
Our booster last week was in a specialist site, a football stadium, and it's difficult to think how it could have been quicker or more efficient. We were booked for 9.50 and were back in the car, all done by 10.20. And that includes a few minutes walk to and from the car.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Gosh I couldn't have stood that. I'm having mine at a little wheelie hut just off the high street so it should be a quick in and out.
I queued outside for mine and that was fine but when they told me sit down in the waiting room for fifteen minutes afterwards I took one look at all the oldies gathered there and legged it.
You will be glad to hear I made the five minute walk home without keeling over.
Great stuff. I flirted with skipping mine since I've heard about bad side effects with a Pfizer sauce on top of a double Astra burger but I've psyched up and I'm going for it. Which I'm most pleased with myself about. How much greater is the courage of the man who does what he fears compared to he who fears nothing?
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Gosh I couldn't have stood that. I'm having mine at a little wheelie hut just off the high street so it should be a quick in and out.
Our booster last week was in a specialist site, a football stadium, and it's difficult to think how it could have been quicker or more efficient. We were booked for 9.50 and were back in the car, all done by 10.20. And that includes a few minutes walk to and from the car.
That's booking for you. I was a walk-in.
Ours have all been bookings. Could have gone for a walk-in for the booster, but given previous experience we opted for the booking. They've all been quick and easy. Painful arm for 36 or so hours, nothing else.
Having done a little reading into the Shapps story from yesterday, it looks like toast now or toast later.
Why?
I admit to having hardly read in detail, but I can’t see what he’s done wrong.
The criticism seems to be that he’s lobbied in favour of amateur flyers, but so what? In what way (for example) is this different from Boris pushing policy in favour of cyclists?
General aviation has been getting a kicking from authorities for decades, whether it’s expanding controlled airspace, increased licensing requirements or the various fees charged by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority, or Campaign Against Aviation as pilots call them) - it’s great to see one person close to government prepared to stand up for GA, recreational and sporting flyers.
And no, Daily Mail, £100k doesn’t buy you a “Private Jet”, it gets you a share in a four seat, propellor-driven Cessna if you’re lucky.
Shares are much cheaper than that, although of course you have to factor in the monthly costs, contributions to the engine fund and the hourly rate for use to get an idea of how much it would cost in total. But 100k would be ample for say a modest amount of flying over ten years' with a share in an entry level Cessna or PA28. Assuming you already have a licence, of course.
Of course, a share in an old C172 or PA28 comes in even cheaper, which is the way that most GA pilots go.
Or a share in a microlight (which also uses private airfields and gets access to the 50%-up-to-£250 safety grant for electronic conspicuity in ever-more-congested airspace.
Here's my "private jet." One fifth share was £4k, and running costs are £55 per month plus unleaded petrol.
Awesome!
I used to have a share in an ASW-19b glider, that was £3k for a quarter share and about £25 a month - plus aerotows, of course! I do miss flying, having relocated to where there isn’t a lot of it.
I tell you what, though, with the definition of "private jet" used in these reports, plus the reports of Boris Johnson taking a private jet down from COP26 to London, you have to think: I guess there's a reason he looks a bit crumples and tousled.
Unrelatedly, do you know who the other four people are that you share your private jet with?
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Gosh I couldn't have stood that. I'm having mine at a little wheelie hut just off the high street so it should be a quick in and out.
Our booster last week was in a specialist site, a football stadium, and it's difficult to think how it could have been quicker or more efficient. We were booked for 9.50 and were back in the car, all done by 10.20. And that includes a few minutes walk to and from the car.
Did you get the flu jab at the same time? I am. A Pfizer and a flu, boom boom, one after the other. Talk about the lions den.
The money paid to that hotel by foreign governments during his Presidency stinks to high heaven but its the loss of a prestigious site in Washington itself, near the Whitehouse. It also suggests, again, that the Trump name is not an asset in running such a business. His claim to be a successful businessman is rapidly catching up with his claim that the election was stolen in credibility.
The family fortune was made by his father Fred Trump who was something of a teenage genius, buying real estate in his mother's (Donald's Grandmother) name at first because he was under age.
They went on to make a vast fortune by buying up chunks of Manhattan at rock bottom prices when people were forced to sell during the Great Depression.
Fred had to retire in in 1990s because he developed Alzheimer's disease and he choose to hand over nearly all the family wealth to Donald because his eldest son, Fred Jnr. was a chronic alcoholic.
When he first became President someone calculated that if Donald had simply put all the money on deposit, he would have more money than he has now after his mostly unsuccessful business career.
Was it Fred's father who kept (ahem) short-term hotels?
Friedrich Trump first left Germany aged 16 and moved to New York where he became an apprentice barber, then he joined the Klondike Gold Rush where he opened a restaurant for the prospectors which doubled as a brothel.
With the money he made from that he went back to Germany and got married, but he soon returned to the US to avoid military service and became an American citizen, Fred was born in 1905.
Friedrich worked as a hotel manager in New York and died in the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.
The draft dodging apple didn’t fall far from the the tree.
Using my handy translator, the German for bone spurs is Knochensporne.
I'd file that under "be careful of what you wish for". I'd love to know what the 50% of people who think they get paid too much think they ought to be paid. I think part of the reason we get few really high calibre MPs is that there isn't enough reward there. We would end up with poorer candidates and/or those with significant personal funds already. There was a very good reason that salaries for MPs was introduced in the first place.
Unfortunately I think a very large number of people in this country believe that no one should get paid more than they do.
Back to COP26 for a moment. The simplicities of idiots have, so far, been decent predictors of actual progress. Is this idiot's guide COP26 about right:
1) CO2 emissions are both continuing and increasing in output year on year.
2) It is essential to halve emissions by 2030 - reduce to 50% of current levels.
3) COP26 puts us in line to reduce the additional annual amount of CO2 by 20%, not 50%.
4) 20% of 50% is 10% of 100%
5) COP26, if implemented, reduces the amount of annual extra CO2 by 2030 by 10% from its current level. We are still doing 90% of the damage we are doing now.
6) If the science is right this isn't going to work, and is nowhere close.
Where have I gone wrong?
3/4 is backwards I think.
20% of 50% is 40% of the target. Sounds counterintuitive but 20/50 = 40% not 10%
Not a maths person, but not sure here.
If I aim to halve emissions, then out of the 100 units I emit I intend there shall in future be 50. If I get to 20% of my 50 target, that is 10 units. That is 10% of 100. I am still emitting 90 units, 90% of what I emitted before.
This is not close to what is needed. Greta is right.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Gosh I couldn't have stood that. I'm having mine at a little wheelie hut just off the high street so it should be a quick in and out.
Our booster last week was in a specialist site, a football stadium, and it's difficult to think how it could have been quicker or more efficient. We were booked for 9.50 and were back in the car, all done by 10.20. And that includes a few minutes walk to and from the car.
Did you get the flu jab at the same time? I am. A Pfizer and a flu, boom boom, one after the other. Talk about the lions den.
No, had that at our local surgery back in September. Surgery sets aside a couple of Saturdays each year for the over 65's, plus the at risks, and does something similar to the vaccination bookings sites. Appointments every two minutes, in and out in that time. Always assuming one goes in with one's coat off.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Gosh I couldn't have stood that. I'm having mine at a little wheelie hut just off the high street so it should be a quick in and out.
I shouldn't have, but the sunk cost fallacy got to me.
Yes, I know what you mean. And in a sense 3.5 hours is better than, say, 45 minutes because you can really use it, eg read a whole book, even make a new friend, depending who you were sat next to.
"Take your dog waste home: National Trust removes bins from beauty spot in Hampshire after sharp increase in bags being dumped by pet owners Park rangers at Ludshott Common in east Hampshire cannot keep up with waste They say bags are being left on top of overflowing bins and hanging from trees National Trust says area around the bins has been left in a 'sad and sorry state' Bosses of charity have decided to remove bins from the 735 acre beauty spot They are instead urging dog owners to take their waste bags home with them "
It's just the one word - saying "likely" instead of "unlikely".
Yes and how is that spin?
The UK is likely to trigger it and that's being reported across the media not just LauraK.
With the evidence before us, saying unlikely would be spin. How is saying likely spin?
It's unlikely. The "likely" is Johnson/Frost spin. And, yes, it's not just Laura parroting it, it's the whole of the punditry class. Same as they did with "Boris preparing to No Deal" at about this same time last year. We all remember that. A Not Happening Event went odds on fav would you believe. A 'licence to print' for the few astuties.
The only reason it'd be unlikely is if the EU cave on all the UK's demands, just as they did this time last year.
Which is quite probable. But the EU only caved last year because the UK was prepared to No Deal and its the same again this time.
Being prepared to go all in can force the other player off.
You are a troll sometimes, Philip.
And btw bombastic fantasy posts such as this are not redolent of the "quiet and simple dignity" you were extolling yesterday.
Back to COP26 for a moment. The simplicities of idiots have, so far, been decent predictors of actual progress. Is this idiot's guide COP26 about right:
1) CO2 emissions are both continuing and increasing in output year on year.
2) It is essential to halve emissions by 2030 - reduce to 50% of current levels.
3) COP26 puts us in line to reduce the additional annual amount of CO2 by 20%, not 50%.
4) 20% of 50% is 10% of 100%
5) COP26, if implemented, reduces the amount of annual extra CO2 by 2030 by 10% from its current level. We are still doing 90% of the damage we are doing now.
6) If the science is right this isn't going to work, and is nowhere close.
Where have I gone wrong?
3/4 is backwards I think.
20% of 50% is 40% of the target. Sounds counterintuitive but 20/50 = 40% not 10%
Not a maths person, but not sure here.
If I aim to halve emissions, then out of the 100 units I emit I intend there shall in future be 50. If I get to 20% of my 50 target, that is 10 units. That is 10% of 100. I am still emitting 90 units, 90% of what I emitted before.
This is not close to what is needed. Greta is right.
If you aim to halve emissions, then out of the 100 units you emit you intend there shall in future be 50. If instead of halving you do a 20% reduction in your emissions, then that is 80 units emitted instead. 80 units is 80% of what you emitted before, but 40% of the way to your target of 50.
I'd file that under "be careful of what you wish for". I'd love to know what the 50% of people who think they get paid too much think they ought to be paid. I think part of the reason we get few really high calibre MPs is that there isn't enough reward there. We would end up with poorer candidates and/or those with significant personal funds already. There was a very good reason that salaries for MPs was introduced in the first place.
Unfortunately I think a very large number of people in this country believe that no one should get paid more than they do.
In the famous (?notorious QT clip), where the chap argues that £80k isn't above average earnings Burgon says that he earned around £40k as a solicitor before being elected as an MP. Edit, for the really quick; I noticed the FF a bit late.
"Take your dog waste home: National Trust removes bins from beauty spot in Hampshire after sharp increase in bags being dumped by pet owners Park rangers at Ludshott Common in east Hampshire cannot keep up with waste They say bags are being left on top of overflowing bins and hanging from trees National Trust says area around the bins has been left in a 'sad and sorry state' Bosses of charity have decided to remove bins from the 735 acre beauty spot They are instead urging dog owners to take their waste bags home with them "
It's just the one word - saying "likely" instead of "unlikely".
Yes and how is that spin?
The UK is likely to trigger it and that's being reported across the media not just LauraK.
With the evidence before us, saying unlikely would be spin. How is saying likely spin?
It's unlikely. The "likely" is Johnson/Frost spin. And, yes, it's not just Laura parroting it, it's the whole of the punditry class. Same as they did with "Boris preparing to No Deal" at about this same time last year. We all remember that. A Not Happening Event went odds on fav would you believe. A 'licence to print' for the few astuties.
The only reason it'd be unlikely is if the EU cave on all the UK's demands, just as they did this time last year.
Which is quite probable. But the EU only caved last year because the UK was prepared to No Deal and its the same again this time.
Being prepared to go all in can force the other player off.
You are a troll sometimes, Philip.
And btw bombastic fantasy posts such as this are not redolent of the "quiet and simple dignity" you were extolling yesterday.
No trolling, 100% serious.
The EU caved on all disputed issues like governance etc last year. The only reason that happened was the UK was prepared to go for No Deal more than the EU were.
Political Betting. I never considered it before because I didn’t think how it would work. It makes more sense to me now thinking election is a race - can you in political betting work out who will win and back the winner? I have never bet on politics. I do know about politics. When I was at uni I was told I understand political issues better than anyone. But I have only bet on horses. I backed two winners when I was at Cheltenham over the weekend. I bet on hurdles mostly, because I know now if I back the fastest horse I will win. steeplechase is too much of luck.
What I meant is the main factor I am looking for in hurdles is speed round the course, there are other things to consider, which I do look at, but I don’t think any of it even form is going to matter as speed on the course distance and conditions. I’m often backing winners with my way of choosing I don’t really care very much about odds, I don’t look for better odds when confident who winner is. Is there a similar way of doing this in political betting? I don’t think so.
Political Betting. I never considered it before because I didn’t think how it would work. It makes more sense to me now thinking election is a race - can you in political betting work out who will win and back the winner? I have never bet on politics. I do know about politics. When I was at uni I was told I understand political issues better than anyone. But I have only bet on horses. I backed two winners when I was at Cheltenham over the weekend. I bet on hurdles mostly, because I know now if I back the fastest horse I will win. steeplechase is too much of luck.
What I meant is the main factor I am looking for in hurdles is speed round the course, there are other things to consider, which I do look at, but I don’t think any of it even form is going to matter as speed on the course distance and conditions. I’m often backing winners with my way of choosing I don’t really care very much about odds, I don’t look for better odds when confident who winner is. Is there a similar way of doing this in political betting? I don’t think so.
Welcome. It's who do you think will win, one the basis of judgement, rather than who do you want to win.
Political Betting. I never considered it before because I didn’t think how it would work. It makes more sense to me now thinking election is a race - can you in political betting work out who will win and back the winner? I have never bet on politics. I do know about politics. When I was at uni I was told I understand political issues better than anyone. But I have only bet on horses. I backed two winners when I was at Cheltenham over the weekend. I bet on hurdles mostly, because I know now if I back the fastest horse I will win. steeplechase is too much of luck.
What I meant is the main factor I am looking for in hurdles is speed round the course, there are other things to consider, which I do look at, but I don’t think any of it even form is going to matter as speed on the course distance and conditions. I’m often backing winners with my way of choosing I don’t really care very much about odds, I don’t look for better odds when confident who winner is. Is there a similar way of doing this in political betting? I don’t think so.
With respect, and I’m sorry if I’m insulting a real human, but your post reads like it’s written by a (spam?)bot.
Political Betting. I never considered it before because I didn’t think how it would work. It makes more sense to me now thinking election is a race - can you in political betting work out who will win and back the winner? I have never bet on politics. I do know about politics. When I was at uni I was told I understand political issues better than anyone. But I have only bet on horses. I backed two winners when I was at Cheltenham over the weekend. I bet on hurdles mostly, because I know now if I back the fastest horse I will win. steeplechase is too much of luck.
What I meant is the main factor I am looking for in hurdles is speed round the course, there are other things to consider, which I do look at, but I don’t think any of it even form is going to matter as speed on the course distance and conditions. I’m often backing winners with my way of choosing I don’t really care very much about odds, I don’t look for better odds when confident who winner is. Is there a similar way of doing this in political betting? I don’t think so.
There is much more mispricing in politics than horses/footie and this is a good place to identify it. Most recently, lots of people made a packet in Chesham and Amersham at 20/1, tipped by the site owner.
I identified it as a good value loser, and cashed out a £5 bet for £6.20. Genius decision.
"Take your dog waste home: National Trust removes bins from beauty spot in Hampshire after sharp increase in bags being dumped by pet owners Park rangers at Ludshott Common in east Hampshire cannot keep up with waste They say bags are being left on top of overflowing bins and hanging from trees National Trust says area around the bins has been left in a 'sad and sorry state' Bosses of charity have decided to remove bins from the 735 acre beauty spot They are instead urging dog owners to take their waste bags home with them "
It's just the one word - saying "likely" instead of "unlikely".
Yes and how is that spin?
The UK is likely to trigger it and that's being reported across the media not just LauraK.
With the evidence before us, saying unlikely would be spin. How is saying likely spin?
It's unlikely. The "likely" is Johnson/Frost spin. And, yes, it's not just Laura parroting it, it's the whole of the punditry class. Same as they did with "Boris preparing to No Deal" at about this same time last year. We all remember that. A Not Happening Event went odds on fav would you believe. A 'licence to print' for the few astuties.
The only reason it'd be unlikely is if the EU cave on all the UK's demands, just as they did this time last year.
Which is quite probable. But the EU only caved last year because the UK was prepared to No Deal and its the same again this time.
Being prepared to go all in can force the other player off.
You are a troll sometimes, Philip.
And btw bombastic fantasy posts such as this are not redolent of the "quiet and simple dignity" you were extolling yesterday.
No trolling, 100% serious.
The EU caved on all disputed issues like governance etc last year. The only reason that happened was the UK was prepared to go for No Deal more than the EU were.
I was being kind with troll. If you truly believe this, a different word applies. Which I'll keep to myself since I don't like to go ad homibus unless provoked beyond all bounds of decency.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Seriously? 3.5 hours. I'd never queue more than 20 mins for anything. Ski lift maybe.
Scot Gov covid advisor Prof Devi Sridhar tells #bbcgms new covid “protections” we could see include “tightening of indoor settings where it’s risky”. Could include more venues asking for vaccine passports or negative tests. She says she’d advise this should be introduced.
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood · 25m Booster dose cuts your chances of getting infected with Delta by at least 7x-9x vs being double-vaccinated. UK real-world data with Pfizer & AZ.
Will this be it, or will more boosters be needed?
No-one knows.
Unless you know what the chances are of getting inflected when double vaxxed then the 7x - 9x is a meaningless stat. What am I multiplying or dividing by 7 or 9? It could make a huge difference or little at all.
Does anyone give that info?
It's not totally meaningless. Unless transmission amongst double-vaccinated people is zero this is good news.
Yes it is good news. It's just my lifetime rant, normally at the press because they pick up science stuff they don't understand, and get it wrong or only produce half the data making it very annoying.
My favourite is always when stuff orbits the earth docking with something else or the best was a lander onto a comet and for effect they refer to the velocity relative to the earth. Meaningless but impressively large number. If meaningful there would be a lot of debris.
Yep, I know where you're coming from. Like the X triples cancer risk claims you see now and again. Where the baseline risk is 1 in 100 million or so.
Having said that, the infection risks when double vaxxed are non-negligible - it's what, 60-70% reduction (alowing for some waning of protection over time - more if recently vaxxed) compared to unvaxxed? So say infection on a typical exposure happens in 50% of cases (plucked from my posterior, no useful definition for a 'typical' exposure anyway) then double vax gets you to 20% chance (assume 60% reduction) and booster drops you to 2-3%. So it's likely this is still clinically very significant.
n=2 alert. Both Mrs C and I were double vaccinated by Easter. We both caught Covid, without being warned through Test & Trace, in early October. While asymptomatic, but presumably infectious, we stayed with Mrs C's brother & his wife, also double vaccinated, neither of whom have developed it
N is greater than 2 actually, I believe there's others on PB who have caught it/have close relatives who have caught it after 2x vaccs. It's very wrong of me, but I find reliable anecdote of that kind more compelling than large numbers, having evolved to monitor what is going on in the tribe.
To egg the pudding a little more when we got home we each did an LFT test, both of which we negative. The next day (Thursday) we went to our local hospital, as Mrs C needed a minor procedure on her eyes. We went by taxi, as I've got a problem with my feet which means I can't drive ATM. The drivers were both masked, as were we. We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive. Make of that what you will.
My 3.5 hours queueing for a booster, mostly inside, was easily the most extensive exposure to other people I have had since 2019. Ironic if I have got it, before the booster becomes effective
Seriously? 3.5 hours. i'd never queue more than 20 mins for anything. Ski lift maybe.
Like I said, sunk cost fallacy. If I'd known in advance I'd have come straight home. And it's done now.
Back to COP26 for a moment. The simplicities of idiots have, so far, been decent predictors of actual progress. Is this idiot's guide COP26 about right:
1) CO2 emissions are both continuing and increasing in output year on year.
2) It is essential to halve emissions by 2030 - reduce to 50% of current levels.
3) COP26 puts us in line to reduce the additional annual amount of CO2 by 20%, not 50%.
4) 20% of 50% is 10% of 100%
5) COP26, if implemented, reduces the amount of annual extra CO2 by 2030 by 10% from its current level. We are still doing 90% of the damage we are doing now.
6) If the science is right this isn't going to work, and is nowhere close.
Where have I gone wrong?
I saw Bozo press conference where he stated that COP26 was actually held in Edinburgh, how thick is he really. What a cretin.
I'd file that under "be careful of what you wish for". I'd love to know what the 50% of people who think they get paid too much think they ought to be paid. I think part of the reason we get few really high calibre MPs is that there isn't enough reward there. We would end up with poorer candidates and/or those with significant personal funds already. There was a very good reason that salaries for MPs was introduced in the first place.
Unfortunately I think a very large number of people in this country believe that no one should get paid more than they do.
In the famous (?notorious QT clip), where the chap argues that £80k isn't above average earnings Burgon says that he earned around £40k as a solicitor before being elected as an MP. Edit, for the really quick; I noticed the FF a bit late.
The guy who argued £80K wasn't above average earnings was an idiot, it clearly is , and by a large amount. However, like all jobs if you want the best people you have to pay for it. If it were down to me I'd double the salaries of MPs and Ministers. I have no aspirations for political office myself as I'd be terrible at defending the indefencible!
Covid report day 4. After a second day of no more than a moderately bad cold, symptoms started to get worse in the evening. (Runny nose, sneezing). Another disturbed feverish night, but the fever seemed to break about half way through and I managed to get some sleep. Woke up feeling knackered and barely able to get out of bed. I have now lost most of my sense of taste and smell (coffee is just a warm, brown fluid but I got some taste from smoked mackerel). My positive PCR test came through yesterday after about 24 hours and I have received a text from my GP offering me remote oxygen monitoring. Beginning to feel pleased I didn't encounter this with a naive immune system. The daytime symptoms are no more than a moderately bad cold but the two nights of fever were something else. Shows no sign of going onto the chest though.
Hopefully it stays that way John and you are better soon.
Political Betting. I never considered it before because I didn’t think how it would work. It makes more sense to me now thinking election is a race - can you in political betting work out who will win and back the winner? I have never bet on politics. I do know about politics. When I was at uni I was told I understand political issues better than anyone. But I have only bet on horses. I backed two winners when I was at Cheltenham over the weekend. I bet on hurdles mostly, because I know now if I back the fastest horse I will win. steeplechase is too much of luck.
What I meant is the main factor I am looking for in hurdles is speed round the course, there are other things to consider, which I do look at, but I don’t think any of it even form is going to matter as speed on the course distance and conditions. I’m often backing winners with my way of choosing I don’t really care very much about odds, I don’t look for better odds when confident who winner is. Is there a similar way of doing this in political betting? I don’t think so.
There is much more mispricing in politics than horses/footie and this is a good place to identify it. Most recently, lots of people made a packet in Chesham and Amersham at 20/1, tipped by the site owner.
I identified it as a good value loser, and cashed out a £5 bet for £6.20. Genius decision.
I also laid back too early. Profit therefore a fraction of what it would have been. I'd have still thought that a good decision if it'd been close but given the margin it really wasn't.
I don't see how travellers from Europe are going to make any significant difference to our case numbers in the UK. We already have lots of Covid going around (I know many cases locally in the last week). We also have built up a good deal of immunity through infections and now boosters. The time to be concerned about infections from Europe, and elsewhere, was February/March 2020. Not now.
The final lines of the headline are telling - "and then what?"
A16 supposedly pushes both parties to fix in a timely manner the issue that prompted the triggering. As we have no proposals that are viable apart from "The EU need to drop all their arguments" this is not going to be a solution.
The simple truth is that we will swing into a trade war as by far the smaller party, will get hit harder by it, will de-escalate and we all find ourselves damaged but back in the exact place we started.
The EU are not about to cave and dismantle the single market. You'd think that our side would understand that by now. Then again with the reports as to how Johnson didn't understand things like the customs union as late as last summer, probably not.
AS per recent press conference he went to Glasgow COP26 and thought he was in Edinburgh, you would think given he has been working it supposedly for some time that he might have remembered it was Glasgow and he actually went there twice last week rather than Edinburgh. The man is a moron.
Boris to chair Cobra meeting this pm in response to terror attack
It's actually rather sad, but I no longer want to hear that Boris is getting involved in serious matters. It's just not his thing. They should just restrict his use to being the entertaining front man.
Having done a little reading into the Shapps story from yesterday, it looks like toast now or toast later.
Why?
I admit to having hardly read in detail, but I can’t see what he’s done wrong.
The criticism seems to be that he’s lobbied in favour of amateur flyers, but so what? In what way (for example) is this different from Boris pushing policy in favour of cyclists?
General aviation has been getting a kicking from authorities for decades, whether it’s expanding controlled airspace, increased licensing requirements or the various fees charged by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority, or Campaign Against Aviation as pilots call them) - it’s great to see one person close to government prepared to stand up for GA, recreational and sporting flyers.
And no, Daily Mail, £100k doesn’t buy you a “Private Jet”, it gets you a share in a four seat, propellor-driven Cessna if you’re lucky.
Shares are much cheaper than that, although of course you have to factor in the monthly costs, contributions to the engine fund and the hourly rate for use to get an idea of how much it would cost in total. But 100k would be ample for say a modest amount of flying over ten years' with a share in an entry level Cessna or PA28. Assuming you already have a licence, of course.
Of course, a share in an old C172 or PA28 comes in even cheaper, which is the way that most GA pilots go.
Or a share in a microlight (which also uses private airfields and gets access to the 50%-up-to-£250 safety grant for electronic conspicuity in ever-more-congested airspace.
Here's my "private jet." One fifth share was £4k, and running costs are £55 per month plus unleaded petrol.
Awesome!
I used to have a share in an ASW-19b glider, that was £3k for a quarter share and about £25 a month - plus aerotows, of course! I do miss flying, having relocated to where there isn’t a lot of it.
Very nice. I had half shares in a Standard Cirrus and before that an Open Class Cirrus but all sadly just a memory now. Half intended to get back into gliding when I retired but somehow it's never happened. Got to be the cheapest way to fly (not so good for a commute though!) Superb fun!
Political Betting. I never considered it before because I didn’t think how it would work. It makes more sense to me now thinking election is a race - can you in political betting work out who will win and back the winner? I have never bet on politics. I do know about politics. When I was at uni I was told I understand political issues better than anyone. But I have only bet on horses. I backed two winners when I was at Cheltenham over the weekend. I bet on hurdles mostly, because I know now if I back the fastest horse I will win. steeplechase is too much of luck.
What I meant is the main factor I am looking for in hurdles is speed round the course, there are other things to consider, which I do look at, but I don’t think any of it even form is going to matter as speed on the course distance and conditions. I’m often backing winners with my way of choosing I don’t really care very much about odds, I don’t look for better odds when confident who winner is. Is there a similar way of doing this in political betting? I don’t think so.
With respect, and I’m sorry if I’m insulting a real human, but your post reads like it’s written by a (spam?)bot.
I accept your apology ping. I am a real human. Why would I want to be a bot?
Apologies if this doesn’t make any sense as well, I can see polling trends. Gaps between leading parties is what makes a headline, but the poll range for a party is more easy to get trend especially, when tracking on just each poll company - for example The Conservatives with Opinium - 15th Oct 41, 29th Oct 40, 6th Nov 37, 12th Nov 36. That’s a trend isn’t it? but what does trend mean in terms of placing a political bet? Nothing clear to me. obvious example is Lib Dem’s who I vote for I see polling double digits more often in polls recently, so do I place a bet because this trend means more blue boxes knocked over taking the mickey the way the Conservatives drove forklift through boxes? The answers no actually, libdems down again in latest polls, that’s the reason against deciding a political bet to quickly isn’t it?
I’m not against political betting just trying to work out what makes it sensible. After I found this chat room, which is confusing at first because it’s not obviously politics or betting going on in the chat, I looked how to do political betting and it seems it’s betting a hunch on trends that means you spread your political bets with your hunch. The obvious problem I see is where to get objective knowledge from, because media like to give impressions about something that probably won’t matter to votes, and is not factual just rigged up. So do you trust media narrative for a hunch?
One opinion poll won’t make me place a bet. even if I followed trends, does a trend in polling offer any assurance it’s going to go into real votes when election come? I would say no. media stories and fluctuating polling trends may not actually mean anything to actual votes, making it too much of a gamble and not based on betting talent, so I don’t think is very safe type of betting, it’s optimistic punts. Or worse, wishful thinking bets based on your political supporting isn’t it?
Political Betting. I never considered it before because I didn’t think how it would work. It makes more sense to me now thinking election is a race - can you in political betting work out who will win and back the winner? I have never bet on politics. I do know about politics. When I was at uni I was told I understand political issues better than anyone. But I have only bet on horses. I backed two winners when I was at Cheltenham over the weekend. I bet on hurdles mostly, because I know now if I back the fastest horse I will win. steeplechase is too much of luck.
What I meant is the main factor I am looking for in hurdles is speed round the course, there are other things to consider, which I do look at, but I don’t think any of it even form is going to matter as speed on the course distance and conditions. I’m often backing winners with my way of choosing I don’t really care very much about odds, I don’t look for better odds when confident who winner is. Is there a similar way of doing this in political betting? I don’t think so.
With respect, and I’m sorry if I’m insulting a real human, but your post reads like it’s written by a (spam?)bot.
I accept your apology ping. I am a real human. Why would I want to be a bot?
Apologies if this doesn’t make any sense as well, I can see polling trends. Gaps between leading parties is what makes a headline, but the poll range for a party is more easy to get trend especially, when tracking on just each poll company - for example The Conservatives with Opinium - 15th Oct 41, 29th Oct 40, 6th Nov 37, 12th Nov 36. That’s a trend isn’t it? but what does trend mean in terms of placing a political bet? Nothing clear to me. obvious example is Lib Dem’s who I vote for I see polling double digits more often in polls recently, so do I place a bet because this trend means more blue boxes knocked over taking the mickey the way the Conservatives drove forklift through boxes? The answers no actually, libdems down again in latest polls, that’s the reason against deciding a political bet to quickly isn’t it?
I’m not against political betting just trying to work out what makes it sensible. After I found this chat room, which is confusing at first because it’s not obviously politics or betting going on in the chat, I looked how to do political betting and it seems it’s betting a hunch on trends that means you spread your political bets with your hunch. The obvious problem I see is where to get objective knowledge from, because media like to give impressions about something that probably won’t matter to votes, and is not factual just rigged up. So do you trust media narrative for a hunch?
One opinion poll won’t make me place a bet. even if I followed trends, does a trend in polling offer any assurance it’s going to go into real votes when election come? I would say no. media stories and fluctuating polling trends may not actually mean anything to actual votes, making it too much of a gamble and not based on betting talent, so I don’t think is very safe type of betting, it’s optimistic punts. Or worse, wishful thinking bets based on your political supporting isn’t it?
The best way to bet on politics is when you notice that the received wisdom isn't in line with the scientific evidence in the form of opinions polls and other surveys. This happens surprisingly often. For example the 2017 election, when most people didn't believe that Labour were going to do as well as they did despite the polls showing it would happen.
Boris to chair Cobra meeting this pm in response to terror attack
It's actually rather sad, but I no longer want to hear that Boris is getting involved in serious matters. It's just not his thing. They should just restrict his use to being the entertaining front man.
This may be a cunning plan to reverse that popular view. Boris is a busy bee today. Cobra for the Liverpool terrorists, as well as the presser for Euro-Covid. For any other Prime Minister, doing two serious things a day would be unremarkable.
Having done a little reading into the Shapps story from yesterday, it looks like toast now or toast later.
Why?
I admit to having hardly read in detail, but I can’t see what he’s done wrong.
The criticism seems to be that he’s lobbied in favour of amateur flyers, but so what? In what way (for example) is this different from Boris pushing policy in favour of cyclists?
General aviation has been getting a kicking from authorities for decades, whether it’s expanding controlled airspace, increased licensing requirements or the various fees charged by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority, or Campaign Against Aviation as pilots call them) - it’s great to see one person close to government prepared to stand up for GA, recreational and sporting flyers.
And no, Daily Mail, £100k doesn’t buy you a “Private Jet”, it gets you a share in a four seat, propellor-driven Cessna if you’re lucky.
Shares are much cheaper than that, although of course you have to factor in the monthly costs, contributions to the engine fund and the hourly rate for use to get an idea of how much it would cost in total. But 100k would be ample for say a modest amount of flying over ten years' with a share in an entry level Cessna or PA28. Assuming you already have a licence, of course.
Of course, a share in an old C172 or PA28 comes in even cheaper, which is the way that most GA pilots go.
Or a share in a microlight (which also uses private airfields and gets access to the 50%-up-to-£250 safety grant for electronic conspicuity in ever-more-congested airspace.
Here's my "private jet." One fifth share was £4k, and running costs are £55 per month plus unleaded petrol.
Awesome!
I used to have a share in an ASW-19b glider, that was £3k for a quarter share and about £25 a month - plus aerotows, of course! I do miss flying, having relocated to where there isn’t a lot of it.
Very nice. I had half shares in a Standard Cirrus and before that an Open Class Cirrus but all sadly just a memory now. Half intended to get back into gliding when I retired but somehow it's never happened. Got to be the cheapest way to fly (not so good for a commute though!) Superb fun!
Absolutely, great fun. As the t-shirt says, glider pilots do it with no engine at all!
Looked at the footage of the taxi blowing up and while no expert obvs, the force of the blast looks more than just detonators going off (there was also also enough force to rupture the fuel tank I assume).
Planning a road trip to the Italian Lakes next summer and we fancy coimng back via Austria with a few nights stop somewhere.
I don't know Austria at all, what's our best bet for a stop... Innsbruck? Salzburg? Vienna is a bit out of the way since we have to drive back to the Channel
I saw this from last night - Sean’s suggestion of the South Tyrol was on the money in terms of its attractions, but not necessarily the geography. It depends which lake you are finishing at. If your trip ends at Garda, then heading up through the Brenner can be the way home, and South Tyrol is a great extra stop - Bolzano or Brixen, as he said, or Merano, for a small detour or Ortisei for a moderate detour.
But you’ll still then have a long drive home, too long for a single leg. Tubingen or Freiburg are great spots for an overnight to break the driving. Or Fussen, which is a great stopover, if not that far into the driving.
However if you’re at the western lakes it would obviously be more sensible to come back through Switzerland, and even from Iseo Austria would be a considerable detour. Indeed Garda via Austria is more driving than via France or Switzerland, assuming you’re heading for Calais or similar.
You can buy Austrian motorway passes online provided you do so at least two weeks before the journey.
Swiss don't half rob you to pass through though. Salzberg is beautiful but your suggestion of Fussen area is a good one , it is beautiful around there. Used to weekend in Hohen Schwangau when I was in Munich. @Benpointer
The Swiss are certainly good at fleecing travellers - but then robbing people passing through the Alps has been that country's business model dating back to ancient times.
But the iniquity of the annual pass is really that the Swiss themselves pay so little. If you compare the €40-odd Swiss pass, for doing a single or return trip across the entire country en route from the UK, to the cost you pay on the French motorways for a similar length, it isn't so bad.
I was in Schwangau just two months' back, stayed at the edge of that flat plain just below the castles, with the mountain views, and a great beer garden just along the road. I hope to return on a future trip. I'm sure we all know the closing scenes of the Great Escape, with McQueen being pursued through Alpine countryside on his motorbike - that was all filmed in that area, between Fussen and Pfronten.
Political Betting. I never considered it before because I didn’t think how it would work. It makes more sense to me now thinking election is a race - can you in political betting work out who will win and back the winner? I have never bet on politics. I do know about politics. When I was at uni I was told I understand political issues better than anyone. But I have only bet on horses. I backed two winners when I was at Cheltenham over the weekend. I bet on hurdles mostly, because I know now if I back the fastest horse I will win. steeplechase is too much of luck.
What I meant is the main factor I am looking for in hurdles is speed round the course, there are other things to consider, which I do look at, but I don’t think any of it even form is going to matter as speed on the course distance and conditions. I’m often backing winners with my way of choosing I don’t really care very much about odds, I don’t look for better odds when confident who winner is. Is there a similar way of doing this in political betting? I don’t think so.
There is much more mispricing in politics than horses/footie and this is a good place to identify it. Most recently, lots of people made a packet in Chesham and Amersham at 20/1, tipped by the site owner.
I identified it as a good value loser, and cashed out a £5 bet for £6.20. Genius decision.
£1.20? Seriously? If I tell you which horse is going to win a hurdles race I would expect more than a five pound bet on it!
I understand what you are saying, mispricing exists in horse racing too, where it’s been kept back, hidden away in point to points despite how fast it was when it last raced on course.
Correct me where I am wrong, you are saying there is money to be made betting against the market, where the market lacks knowledge?
on other hand this may not be completely right, yes if I am sure betting markets are wrong, it means I can bet against them. But not all bets against a market are smart ones, smartest bets are those where you work out who the winner is.When you know what is going to happen and why. And to do that you need to know something.
Is a media narrative founded in something that really matters? Is the media actually objective? If these answers no, it means not only you shouldn’t learn from media but they help you get political betting wrong.
Are opinion polls a measure of public opinion? Not necessarily. For starters it depends if they were scrupulously done to accurate measure of public opinion. And if set up fair are they answered honestly? Not if someone says they don’t know who to vote for despite knowing they will vote and for exactly who. Very honest with you, I done that myself? Sometimes I’m feeling okay to give an opinion sometimes I’m not.
to do good political bets you need to know something, but you can’t trust media or polls to give you that knowledge.
Drill into the data this week and you will find that only a little over half of the Conservative’s 2019 voters would vote again for the party at an election tomorrow. While one in 20 has jumped ship to Reform a much larger number, nearly one in three, now say they would not vote or do not know who to vote for. Since the start of 2020, the percentage of Leavers backing Johnson has crashed from 76% to 58%. At the end of the day, all Johnson needs to do to retain power is keep hold of the Leavers who pushed through the realignment. The fact their support is now waning should be ringing loud alarm bells in No 10 — assuming there are people who have an interest in ringing these bells, of course.
These issues, rather than sleaze, are the far more pressing problems facing Johnson. Unless he gets to grips with them it is not hard to see how, much like John Major in the Nineties and Gordon Brown in the late 2000s, his premiership will go down in the history books for not only being stained by sleaze but for being a rather brief affair.
The final lines of the headline are telling - "and then what?"
A16 supposedly pushes both parties to fix in a timely manner the issue that prompted the triggering. As we have no proposals that are viable apart from "The EU need to drop all their arguments" this is not going to be a solution.
The simple truth is that we will swing into a trade war as by far the smaller party, will get hit harder by it, will de-escalate and we all find ourselves damaged but back in the exact place we started.
The EU are not about to cave and dismantle the single market. You'd think that our side would understand that by now. Then again with the reports as to how Johnson didn't understand things like the customs union as late as last summer, probably not.
AS per recent press conference he went to Glasgow COP26 and thought he was in Edinburgh, you would think given he has been working it supposedly for some time that he might have remembered it was Glasgow and he actually went there twice last week rather than Edinburgh. The man is a moron.
‘Look Boris, how many time do we have to tell you? Edinburgh is where they think you’re a morally vacant disaster who has proved damaging to the UK and Scotland’s place within it, Glasgow is where they think you’re a prick.’
I’m not against political betting just trying to work out what makes it sensible. After I found this chat room, which is confusing at first because it’s not obviously politics or betting going on in the chat, I looked how to do political betting and it seems it’s betting a hunch on trends that means you spread your political bets with your hunch. The obvious problem I see is where to get objective knowledge from, because media like to give impressions about something that probably won’t matter to votes, and is not factual just rigged up. So do you trust media narrative for a hunch?
The key to understanding Political Betting is that possibly even more than any other form of betting you are betting against other punters and not the bookies.
And other punters are rank rotten at political betting. Because it's not a professional's domain, it is mostly amateurs backing what they want to happen.
For instance people staked hundreds of millions upon millions of pounds on Donald Trump to win the presidency AFTER the 2020 election. They were still betting on him to win through the Trump Exit Date market into January this year.
During the Scottish Parliament elections John Curtis made a mental slip and said, with only a few seats left to declare, that the SNP were going to win 63 seats when 64 seats were nailed on due to the breakdown of the regional vote. A hugely profitable bet on the seat bands market then ensued.
The 2015 Scottish Constituency betting market profits and Brexit vote are legendary on here.
One opinion poll won’t make me place a bet. even if I followed trends, does a trend in polling offer any assurance it’s going to go into real votes when election come?
You can bet on polling.
Like "Labour to have a lead in the polls this calendar year" for example...
The simple truth is that we will swing into a trade war
Do you think the EU will get unanimous agreement to start a trade war on its western border when there are the prospects of a real one on its eastern border?
Political Betting. I never considered it before because I didn’t think how it would work. It makes more sense to me now thinking election is a race - can you in political betting work out who will win and back the winner? I have never bet on politics. I do know about politics. When I was at uni I was told I understand political issues better than anyone. But I have only bet on horses. I backed two winners when I was at Cheltenham over the weekend. I bet on hurdles mostly, because I know now if I back the fastest horse I will win. steeplechase is too much of luck.
What I meant is the main factor I am looking for in hurdles is speed round the course, there are other things to consider, which I do look at, but I don’t think any of it even form is going to matter as speed on the course distance and conditions. I’m often backing winners with my way of choosing I don’t really care very much about odds, I don’t look for better odds when confident who winner is. Is there a similar way of doing this in political betting? I don’t think so.
With respect, and I’m sorry if I’m insulting a real human, but your post reads like it’s written by a (spam?)bot.
I accept your apology ping. I am a real human. Why would I want to be a bot?
Apologies if this doesn’t make any sense as well, I can see polling trends. Gaps between leading parties is what makes a headline, but the poll range for a party is more easy to get trend especially, when tracking on just each poll company - for example The Conservatives with Opinium - 15th Oct 41, 29th Oct 40, 6th Nov 37, 12th Nov 36. That’s a trend isn’t it? but what does trend mean in terms of placing a political bet? Nothing clear to me. obvious example is Lib Dem’s who I vote for I see polling double digits more often in polls recently, so do I place a bet because this trend means more blue boxes knocked over taking the mickey the way the Conservatives drove forklift through boxes? The answers no actually, libdems down again in latest polls, that’s the reason against deciding a political bet to quickly isn’t it?
I’m not against political betting just trying to work out what makes it sensible. After I found this chat room, which is confusing at first because it’s not obviously politics or betting going on in the chat, I looked how to do political betting and it seems it’s betting a hunch on trends that means you spread your political bets with your hunch. The obvious problem I see is where to get objective knowledge from, because media like to give impressions about something that probably won’t matter to votes, and is not factual just rigged up. So do you trust media narrative for a hunch?
One opinion poll won’t make me place a bet. even if I followed trends, does a trend in polling offer any assurance it’s going to go into real votes when election come? I would say no. media stories and fluctuating polling trends may not actually mean anything to actual votes, making it too much of a gamble and not based on betting talent, so I don’t think is very safe type of betting, it’s optimistic punts. Or worse, wishful thinking bets based on your political supporting isn’t it?
The best way to bet on politics is when you notice that the received wisdom isn't in line with the scientific evidence in the form of opinions polls and other surveys. This happens surprisingly often. For example the 2017 election, when most people didn't believe that Labour were going to do as well as they did despite the polls showing it would happen.
Political betting is a big difference in what I do when I’m betting on horses to win, how fast the horse runs, compared to guesses not backed up by knowing any important attributes to understand the obvious political bet. And those polls showing good lib dem trend I might have liked because I am biased, so it’s not objective data making my judgement.A polling trend can’t be backed up by solid science that proves based on something. I can’t imagine betting markets accurately guess political winners, because there is no race course to hang out in learning for yourself how fast the horse will go. Political betting odds may tempt those who are big gamblers, but overall this seems too much guesswork like steeplechase or point to point.
Where do you get the solid science in political betting?
One thing I would look for is signs of strong opinions like record popularity figures. If you realise opinions are particularly strong you could be confident there won’t be last minute swing against your bet based on the strong opinions. Does that make sense, the difference between “I might vote something else this time” and “I’m definitely not voting for them again, they are rubbish.” You can from some responses be more confident what people will actually do. But it’s not the measure getting headlines is it, that is poll lead with lots of I might vote something else next time built in.
There is no solid science in political betting, it’s long shot or spread betting isn’t it?
If Johnson loses one or both by-elections next month I think he'll definitely face a leadership challenge within 12 months. If he holds both of them he's more likely to get through to 2023. Statement of the obvious probably.
Planning a road trip to the Italian Lakes next summer and we fancy coimng back via Austria with a few nights stop somewhere.
I don't know Austria at all, what's our best bet for a stop... Innsbruck? Salzburg? Vienna is a bit out of the way since we have to drive back to the Channel
I saw this from last night - Sean’s suggestion of the South Tyrol was on the money in terms of its attractions, but not necessarily the geography. It depends which lake you are finishing at. If your trip ends at Garda, then heading up through the Brenner can be the way home, and South Tyrol is a great extra stop - Bolzano or Brixen, as he said, or Merano, for a small detour or Ortisei for a moderate detour.
But you’ll still then have a long drive home, too long for a single leg. Tubingen or Freiburg are great spots for an overnight to break the driving. Or Fussen, which is a great stopover, if not that far into the driving.
However if you’re at the western lakes it would obviously be more sensible to come back through Switzerland, and even from Iseo Austria would be a considerable detour. Indeed Garda via Austria is more driving than via France or Switzerland, assuming you’re heading for Calais or similar.
You can buy Austrian motorway passes online provided you do so at least two weeks before the journey.
Swiss don't half rob you to pass through though. Salzberg is beautiful but your suggestion of Fussen area is a good one , it is beautiful around there. Used to weekend in Hohen Schwangau when I was in Munich. @Benpointer
The Swiss are certainly good at fleecing travellers - but then robbing people passing through the Alps has been that country's business model dating back to ancient times.
But the iniquity of the annual pass is really that the Swiss themselves pay so little. If you compare the €40-odd Swiss pass, for doing a single or return trip across the entire country en route from the UK, to the cost you pay on the French motorways for a similar length, it isn't so bad.
I was in Schwangau just two months' back, stayed at the edge of that flat plain just below the castles, with the mountain views, and a great beer garden just along the road. I hope to return on a future trip. I'm sure we all know the closing scenes of the Great Escape, with McQueen being pursued through Alpine countryside on his motorbike - that was all filmed in that area, between Fussen and Pfronten.
It's just the one word - saying "likely" instead of "unlikely".
Yes and how is that spin?
The UK is likely to trigger it and that's being reported across the media not just LauraK.
With the evidence before us, saying unlikely would be spin. How is saying likely spin?
It's unlikely. The "likely" is Johnson/Frost spin. And, yes, it's not just Laura parroting it, it's the whole of the punditry class. Same as they did with "Boris preparing to No Deal" at about this same time last year. We all remember that. A Not Happening Event went odds on fav would you believe. A 'licence to print' for the few astuties.
The only reason it'd be unlikely is if the EU cave on all the UK's demands, just as they did this time last year.
Which is quite probable. But the EU only caved last year because the UK was prepared to No Deal and its the same again this time.
Being prepared to go all in can force the other player off.
You say that the EU caved on all the UK's demands at this time last year. You may be right. But if so, why are we back again asking them to cave on the UK's demands now? Surely they've already caved on everything this time last year? Or is this a different cave?
Comments
If they don’t like that, they can either accept some leakage across the NI/RoI border, or police that border themselves.
We both felt OK. However on the Friday Mrs C felt unwell, as I did on the Saturday and sowe did an LFT on the Sunday which was positive.
Make of that what you will.
Air is 28.8 g/mol ; CO2 is 44g.
So it's ~ 20.33 million tonnes net I guess, combined with the ocean absorption and the figures are actually about right..
Edit: Yes actually the below solves it.
Trusted trader standards should be set and then every company that meets those standards should qualify for trusted trade status - with there being nothing preventing every company from becoming a trusted trader unless or until they fail to meet the standards required and get disqualified from being one.
IIRC, the only two teams (out of 10) without significant UK presence are Ferrari and Sauber. Haas contract out most of their work to various companies around the world, but assemble everything in Banbury.
Should MPs be given a pay rise in exchange for banning second jobs?
Yes - 18%
No - 62%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1460206832769765379?s=20
Is a salary of £81,932 for MPs...
Too much - 50%
About right - 34%
Too little - 7%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1460206837735866372?s=20
Earlier 63% of Britons said MPs should not be allowed to take extra paid work outside of their parliamentary roles
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1457735323941851137?s=20
Our dog got given a "puppy-cino" - which is frothed milk over dog biscuits.
I'm not joking.
They might try to make it a motorsport focused roadcar brand which would fit well with Lamborghini who are very much focussed on coke addicts who drive through Knightsbridge at 15mph. However Porsche are already doing that in the VAG portfolio with the GT2/GT3 at a level of competence that McLaren can only dream of.
VAG are the microsegmentation masters though so if anybody can work out a way to do it they can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Racing_(Formula_One_team)
Based in Germany, and a complete failure despite spending a huge fortune.
ETA profits and, bizarrely, subsidies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-59291095
But then…
The man's motivation was "yet to be understood", he said (Head of Counter Terrorism Policing North West Russ Jackson)
Surely a “terror incident” assumes a terrorising intent?
So long as those traders meet the predetermined terms and conditions of the scheme, why can't they all be trusted?
Militant islamism, anti-abortion, anti-vaccination, far right ?
Why he intended to create terror by detonation of his explosive may not be known. That he intended to do so is clearly known...
Which is quite probable. But the EU only caved last year because the UK was prepared to No Deal and its the same again this time.
Being prepared to go all in can force the other player off.
Only one of those is probable.
Here's my "private jet."
One fifth share was £4k, and running costs are £55 per month plus unleaded petrol.
That's what was reported earlier, that part of what alerted the driver that it was suspicious is that once he couldn't get to the Service the terrorist kept changing destinations eventually deciding upon the hospital.
You will be glad to hear I made the five minute walk home without keeling over.
Painful arm for 36 or so hours, nothing else.
I used to have a share in an ASW-19b glider, that was £3k for a quarter share and about £25 a month - plus aerotows, of course! I do miss flying, having relocated to where there isn’t a lot of it.
Using my handy translator, the German for bone spurs is Knochensporne.
Unfortunately I think a very large number of people in this country believe that no one should get paid more than they do.
If I aim to halve emissions, then out of the 100 units I emit I intend there shall in future be 50. If I get to 20% of my 50 target, that is 10 units. That is 10% of 100. I am still emitting 90 units, 90% of what I emitted before.
This is not close to what is needed. Greta is right.
Always assuming one goes in with one's coat off.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10203029/National-Trust-removes-dog-bins-beauty-spot-sharp-increase-poo-bags-dumped.html
"Take your dog waste home: National Trust removes bins from beauty spot in Hampshire after sharp increase in bags being dumped by pet owners
Park rangers at Ludshott Common in east Hampshire cannot keep up with waste
They say bags are being left on top of overflowing bins and hanging from trees
National Trust says area around the bins has been left in a 'sad and sorry state'
Bosses of charity have decided to remove bins from the 735 acre beauty spot
They are instead urging dog owners to take their waste bags home with them "
And btw bombastic fantasy posts such as this are not redolent of the "quiet and simple dignity" you were extolling yesterday.
Edit, for the really quick; I noticed the FF a bit late.
The EU caved on all disputed issues like governance etc last year. The only reason that happened was the UK was prepared to go for No Deal more than the EU were.
What I meant is the main factor I am looking for in hurdles is speed round the course, there are other things to consider, which I do look at, but I don’t think any of it even form is going to matter as speed on the course distance and conditions. I’m often backing winners with my way of choosing I don’t really care very much about odds, I don’t look for better odds when confident who winner is. Is there a similar way of doing this in political betting? I don’t think so.
I identified it as a good value loser, and cashed out a £5 bet for £6.20. Genius decision.
Apologies if this doesn’t make any sense as well, I can see polling trends. Gaps between leading parties is what makes a headline, but the poll range for a party is more easy to get trend especially, when tracking on just each poll company - for example The Conservatives with Opinium - 15th Oct 41, 29th Oct 40, 6th Nov 37, 12th Nov 36. That’s a trend isn’t it? but what does trend mean in terms of placing a political bet? Nothing clear to me. obvious example is Lib Dem’s who I vote for I see polling double digits more often in polls recently, so do I place a bet because this trend means more blue boxes knocked over taking the mickey the way the Conservatives drove forklift through boxes? The answers no actually, libdems down again in latest polls, that’s the reason against deciding a political bet to quickly isn’t it?
I’m not against political betting just trying to work out what makes it sensible. After I found this chat room, which is confusing at first because it’s not obviously politics or betting going on in the chat, I looked how to do political betting and it seems it’s betting a hunch on trends that means you spread your political bets with your hunch. The obvious problem I see is where to get objective knowledge from, because media like to give impressions about something that probably won’t matter to votes, and is not factual just rigged up. So do you trust media narrative for a hunch?
One opinion poll won’t make me place a bet. even if I followed trends, does a trend in polling offer any assurance it’s going to go into real votes when election come? I would say no. media stories and fluctuating polling trends may not actually mean anything to actual votes, making it too much of a gamble and not based on betting talent, so I don’t think is very safe type of betting, it’s optimistic punts. Or worse, wishful thinking bets based on your political supporting isn’t it?
The most important thing.
I understand what you are saying, mispricing exists in horse racing too, where it’s been kept back, hidden away in point to points despite how fast it was when it last raced on course.
Correct me where I am wrong, you are saying there is money to be made betting against the market, where the market lacks knowledge?
on other hand this may not be completely right, yes if I am sure betting markets are wrong, it means I can bet against them. But not all bets against a market are smart ones, smartest bets are those where you work out who the winner is.When you know what is going to happen and why. And to do that you need to know something.
Is a media narrative founded in something that really matters? Is the media actually objective? If these answers no, it means not only you shouldn’t learn from media but they help you get political betting wrong.
Are opinion polls a measure of public opinion? Not necessarily. For starters it depends if they were scrupulously done to accurate measure of public opinion. And if set up fair are they answered honestly? Not if someone says they don’t know who to vote for despite knowing they will vote and for exactly who. Very honest with you, I done that myself? Sometimes I’m feeling okay to give an opinion sometimes I’m not.
to do good political bets you need to know something, but you can’t trust media or polls to give you that knowledge.
Drill into the data this week and you will find that only a little over half of the Conservative’s 2019 voters would vote again for the party at an election tomorrow. While one in 20 has jumped ship to Reform a much larger number, nearly one in three, now say they would not vote or do not know who to vote for. Since the start of 2020, the percentage of Leavers backing Johnson has crashed from 76% to 58%. At the end of the day, all Johnson needs to do to retain power is keep hold of the Leavers who pushed through the realignment. The fact their support is now waning should be ringing loud alarm bells in No 10 — assuming there are people who have an interest in ringing these bells, of course.
These issues, rather than sleaze, are the far more pressing problems facing Johnson. Unless he gets to grips with them it is not hard to see how, much like John Major in the Nineties and Gordon Brown in the late 2000s, his premiership will go down in the history books for not only being stained by sleaze but for being a rather brief affair.
And other punters are rank rotten at political betting. Because it's not a professional's domain, it is mostly amateurs backing what they want to happen.
For instance people staked hundreds of millions upon millions of pounds on Donald Trump to win the presidency AFTER the 2020 election. They were still betting on him to win through the Trump Exit Date market into January this year.
During the Scottish Parliament elections John Curtis made a mental slip and said, with only a few seats left to declare, that the SNP were going to win 63 seats when 64 seats were nailed on due to the breakdown of the regional vote. A hugely profitable bet on the seat bands market then ensued.
The 2015 Scottish Constituency betting market profits and Brexit vote are legendary on here.
There is so much inefficiency it is unreal.
Like "Labour to have a lead in the polls this calendar year" for example...
The many tentacles of Volkswagen AG:
Where do you get the solid science in political betting?
One thing I would look for is signs of strong opinions like record popularity figures. If you realise opinions are particularly strong you could be confident there won’t be last minute swing against your bet based on the strong opinions. Does that make sense, the difference between “I might vote something else this time” and “I’m definitely not voting for them again, they are rubbish.” You can from some responses be more confident what people will actually do. But it’s not the measure getting headlines is it, that is poll lead with lots of I might vote something else next time built in.
There is no solid science in political betting, it’s long shot or spread betting isn’t it?