"Omicron is roughly two-thirds less likely to cause hospitalisation than the delta variant, the first real-world UK study suggests."
Telegraph headline.
Cabinet: 1; SAGE: 0
Indeed. I remember being told that it would always be preferable to live under the rule of unelected experts rather than know nothing politicians. Sometimes the know nothing politicians have got a much better feel for what's happening than the experts who can't see beyond their numbers and modelled data.
Yea, it generally works except when the politicians really do know nothing and when their leader would be better placed as a crowd pleaser at Billy Smart's.
Under Labour "following the science" Christmas would have been cancelled again and we'd be in lockdown until the end of January at least. We'd never have properly got rid of restrictions either in July. Sometimes not being dazzled by experts armed with big numbers is good for us, in fact I'd say that more than sometimes experts wielding big numbers deserve scepticism.
We'd only be getting about 300k vaccinations a day if Starmer was in charge as well.
My personal favorites are "Old Man Pudding" (with Malc as his chief elf?) and "Tabitha the Christmas Hedgehog" (wonder who takes precedence in the Debatable Lands?)
LOL. Old Nick for Cornwall seems about right. Can't really comment on the rest save in all my years in Plymouth I never heard of Joel Noel
"Omicron is roughly two-thirds less likely to cause hospitalisation than the delta variant, the first real-world UK study suggests."
Telegraph headline.
Cabinet: 1; SAGE: 0
Indeed. I remember being told that it would always be preferable to live under the rule of unelected experts rather than know nothing politicians. Sometimes the know nothing politicians have got a much better feel for what's happening than the experts who can't see beyond their numbers and modelled data.
Yea, it generally works except when the politicians really do know nothing and when their leader would be better placed as a crowd pleaser at Billy Smart's.
Under Labour "following the science" Christmas would have been cancelled again and we'd be in lockdown until the end of January at least. We'd never have properly got rid of restrictions either in July. Sometimes not being dazzled by experts armed with big numbers is good for us, in fact I'd say that more than sometimes experts wielding big numbers deserve scepticism.
Early days yet, mind.
Yes indeed
@MaxPB! Remember the last time I had to warn you about breaking the Second Law of Covid Hubris - we got Omicron about a week later...
Let our cheers be muted and wary, for now
If our politicians didn't run around like headless chickens at the drop of a hat Omicron would barely have registered as an issue.
Just catching up on things, but do you see any chance of new restrictions being agreed in England despite this data?
I'm not convinced this will see the likes of Gove drop the prospect of new measures. So I worry as to what their reaction will be if cases spike dramatically from here in the New Year.
I just don't see how Boris would be able to get it past Cabinet and the wider party. I'm also not convinced that Boris is actually in favour either. From my understanding, Rishi aligned most of the cabinet behind his position of "wait for actual data not models" and the actual data is coming out at least where the JP Morgan models indicated wrt disease severity (maybe better, they said half, it may be two thirds) and 3 dose vaccine efficacy seems to be coming well above what the models used and above what JP Morgan used.
Again, and this is just from what I've heard and read, the JP Morgan model report and the Fraser Nelson article was very widely shared among Tory MPs and ministers the day before the cabinet meeting. This is now the baseline for no lockdown and if actual data comes in better than even that it's tough to see how lockdown would get approved.
"Omicron is roughly two-thirds less likely to cause hospitalisation than the delta variant, the first real-world UK study suggests."
Telegraph headline.
Cabinet: 1; SAGE: 0
Indeed. I remember being told that it would always be preferable to live under the rule of unelected experts rather than know nothing politicians. Sometimes the know nothing politicians have got a much better feel for what's happening than the experts who can't see beyond their numbers and modelled data.
Yea, it generally works except when the politicians really do know nothing and when their leader would be better placed as a crowd pleaser at Billy Smart's.
Under Labour "following the science" Christmas would have been cancelled again and we'd be in lockdown until the end of January at least. We'd never have properly got rid of restrictions either in July. Sometimes not being dazzled by experts armed with big numbers is good for us, in fact I'd say that more than sometimes experts wielding big numbers deserve scepticism.
Well I am no fan of Labour, but I think you are being a little uncharacteristically naïve. The oppositions job is to oppose, and also they do not have a data that government has. If they were in government they might have done exactly the same. Perhaps you think they should have said "oh yes, The Clown is always right and we will support him every bit of the way"?
But that's what they have been doing. The only opposition has been 'why didn't you do it sooner'?
Well I'm not going to attack the scientists for seemingly getting it wrong, everyone gets stuff wrong.
I don't get why people can't just be happy that we're seemingly avoiding another lockdown and things aren't as bad as they seemed. I'm delighted
Whilst I would agree with you to some extent I found the Media show on Radio 4 this evening with 3 scientists and the FT expert to be utterly infuriating. They were treating lockdown and other measures as if they had no cost at all. Basically attacking Johnson for not locking down and expressing some incredulity at the idea he might not kindly follow what the scientists have been recommending. It needs to be drummed into these people that the cure can sometimes cause more deaths than the disease. The operations was a success but the patient died is no way to run Government policy.
I can't believe I am saying this but Blair on PM afterwards was a breath of fresh air. Measured and putting everything into context and commenting that not locking down was exactly the right decision. For all that I am no great fan, at least he gets it.
These days, I am often haunted - to the point of near-suicidality - by the idea that Britain would be better if it had been governed by Tony Blair continuously, like a kind of caudillo, since about 2001.
In my counter-factual, Gordon Brown is hurled into space, to orbit the nearest star with his overweight wife, thus solving two problems. 1 Somewhere safe for her to sit, and 2, him. Also, Iraq doesn't happen. Yes yes, bear with me
My second favour from fortune is to ask that Blair realises the genuine threat of Brexit (he seems to understand Brexit, now, better than anyone else on the Left, so it is not mad) and he actually negotiates a meaningful reform-EU deal, he calls a referendum, we vote to stay in this reformed EU, and SO MUCH AWFUL FUCKING SHIT IS AVOIDED
Sigh. But these are my day dreams, and such is my life
I'd vote for a "Blair Party" tomorrow. He is 700% smarter, even in his dotage, than anyone else on the UK political scene
There really is some over the top stuff on here tonight. You would think it was VE Day or summat.
Do you mean you think people are getting ahead of themselves or do you think it's no big deal?
If it does turn out that things are going to be okay re omicron, I'd suggest that is certainly cause for a big celebration. Perhaps it's not as big as some historical events, but if our politicians - or at least some of them - have managed to get past the fear of COVID, that is quite important in my opinion.
The easy option was to bring in restrictions. That they held their nerve is worth celebrating, in my opinion.
The former. The signs look encouraging to be sure don't get me wrong. And I'm delighted about that. But we are one-nil up at half time and several are on a lap of honour.
In second world war terms this is El Alamein. We unlockdowners have finally stopped having the shit kicked out of us every single time. Long way to go yet though.
"Omicron is roughly two-thirds less likely to cause hospitalisation than the delta variant, the first real-world UK study suggests."
Telegraph headline.
Cabinet: 1; SAGE: 0
Indeed. I remember being told that it would always be preferable to live under the rule of unelected experts rather than know nothing politicians. Sometimes the know nothing politicians have got a much better feel for what's happening than the experts who can't see beyond their numbers and modelled data.
Yea, it generally works except when the politicians really do know nothing and when their leader would be better placed as a crowd pleaser at Billy Smart's.
Under Labour "following the science" Christmas would have been cancelled again and we'd be in lockdown until the end of January at least. We'd never have properly got rid of restrictions either in July. Sometimes not being dazzled by experts armed with big numbers is good for us, in fact I'd say that more than sometimes experts wielding big numbers deserve scepticism.
Early days yet, mind.
Yes indeed
@MaxPB! Remember the last time I had to warn you about breaking the Second Law of Covid Hubris - we got Omicron about a week later...
Let our cheers be muted and wary, for now
If our politicians didn't run around like headless chickens at the drop of a hat Omicron would barely have registered as an issue.
Just catching up on things, but do you see any chance of new restrictions being agreed in England despite this data?
I'm not convinced this will see the likes of Gove drop the prospect of new measures. So I worry as to what their reaction will be if cases spike dramatically from here in the New Year.
I just don't see how Boris would be able to get it past Cabinet and the wider party. I'm also not convinced that Boris is actually in favour either. From my understanding, Rishi aligned most of the cabinet behind his position of "wait for actual data not models" and the actual data is coming out at least where the JP Morgan models indicated wrt disease severity (maybe better, they said half, it may be two thirds) and 3 dose vaccine efficacy seems to be coming well above what the models used and above what JP Morgan used.
Again, and this is just from what I've heard and read, the JP Morgan model report and the Fraser Nelson article was very widely shared among Tory MPs and ministers the day before the cabinet meeting. This is now the baseline for no lockdown and if actual data comes in better than even that it's tough to see how lockdown would get approved.
The Fraser Nelson article was, by all accounts, crucial at the Cabinet. Including his Twitter exchange with the SAGE guy
We have government by Spectator journalist. Obvs. Makes sense to me. Good move
"Omicron is roughly two-thirds less likely to cause hospitalisation than the delta variant, the first real-world UK study suggests."
Telegraph headline.
Cabinet: 1; SAGE: 0
Indeed. I remember being told that it would always be preferable to live under the rule of unelected experts rather than know nothing politicians. Sometimes the know nothing politicians have got a much better feel for what's happening than the experts who can't see beyond their numbers and modelled data.
Yea, it generally works except when the politicians really do know nothing and when their leader would be better placed as a crowd pleaser at Billy Smart's.
Under Labour "following the science" Christmas would have been cancelled again and we'd be in lockdown until the end of January at least. We'd never have properly got rid of restrictions either in July. Sometimes not being dazzled by experts armed with big numbers is good for us, in fact I'd say that more than sometimes experts wielding big numbers deserve scepticism.
Well I am no fan of Labour, but I think you are being a little uncharacteristically naïve. The oppositions job is to oppose, and also they do not have a data that government has. If they were in government they might have done exactly the same. Perhaps you think they should have said "oh yes, The Clown is always right and we will support him every bit of the way"?
This is jejune in the extreme
The spirit and ethos of Labour - like the Dems in America - is now joyless, puritan and tending to authoritarianism. Cancellation not Liberation. NO rather than YES. DON'T SAY THAT rather than LET IT ALL HANG OUT
It is very sad. I miss the old sexy liberated permissive Left. But it is gone forever, replaced by a bunch of ugly, cat's-arse-mouthed prudes
Bollocks to that. We are still around. These things go in cycles.
Just saw the JCVI news. FFS. Liberal handwriting and British exceptionalism at its worst. How long are our children going to have to endure disrupted education?
What's the JCVI news? Something on vaccinating younger children?
They’ve said most under 12s are not getting jabbed
How many of them have had the lurgy already? Must be 80%+
Mind you, how sure are they that variant Pi / Omega / Orion won't affect children badly?
It is odd, SAGE seem to come up with every possible scenario of doom, whereas JCVI seem to plan for everything staying as it is at this instant.
No, it's the Andromeda strain that will get the children
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
But she didn't know him at the time of the allegations, did she?
Surely hearsay is inadmissible, so unless she witnessed it herself (unlikely given timeframes and, well, everything),on what basis could she be called?
Not getting involved in this case thanks, but on the subject of hearsay, as a general rule hearsay is not admissible as evidence against a defendant, but an important exception is hearsay evidence of what the defendant himself said about what he himself did.
So, for example in an English criminal case a policeman gives evidence of what the defendant X said about the doings of himself. This is evidence against X. But if the defendants are X and Y, what X said to the the policeman about what Y is NOT evidence against Y unless and until X repeats it in court as X and Y dish each other in a cutthroat defence.
There are a few other exceptions too. And in recent years it has widened a bit to include sometimes hearsay accounts of what witness Z said about defendant W before the witness got intimidated out of repeating it in court.
Thanks. I can hardly imagine Andrew and Meghan having detailed discussions about the whole Epstein thing, and particularly not conversations in which Andrew made self-incriminating comments about any aspects relevant to the court case.
And if Maghan says they did, in private, how can she be proven wrong?
This is simply the general question of the quality, credibility, nature and reliability of evidence. If this was easy there would be no litigation and few lawyers.
The issue is the reputational damage
I’m aware that it’s Andrew we are talking about (!!) but the headlines would not be good for the RF as a whole
I don’t know but I am sure the Mail and Sun would be happy to post a front page headlined “LIAR LIES” with a lovely photo of Megan……
And she would sue them for libel - they couldn’t prove it was a lie
You are of course correct (assuming of course that they didn’t just print a giant headline of “liar lies” and then coincidentally a separate story with small headline about Meghan’s new book, “war and peace” about a humble ginger prince who kills all the bad men who don’t want to educate women and then goes on to create world peace, guided by his brilliant wife, through his mental health foundation and a giant photo of her beatitude to accompany the smaller story…..) however as much as they can’t prove it’s a lie you could equally argue her testimony can’t be proved as the truth surely.
IANAL but I thought in libel the burden of proof was reversed: the defence has to prove reasonable grounds for printing what they did
Well I'm not going to attack the scientists for seemingly getting it wrong, everyone gets stuff wrong.
I don't get why people can't just be happy that we're seemingly avoiding another lockdown and things aren't as bad as they seemed. I'm delighted
There's a lot of people for whom lockdown is no serious imposition and they are the ones putting the SAGE reports together. The cabinet stood up to the "lockdown just in case" consensus and were right to do so.
The government tried to suppress a report into the effect of lockdowns on the poor and minority groups:
After a 15-month long battle, the Government has finally released reports on the effect of Covid restrictions on minority groups. The results make for predictably grim reading.
Overall, they describe a catalogue of harms from March to June last year, which disproportionately affected the most vulnerable. The documents state that LGBT+ groups, women (including pregnant women), the poor, young and old, ethnic minorities, and disabled people have all been the most negatively affected by lockdowns and restrictions.
I really just want this over with. I've spent almost half my twenties in this pandemic. I've had essentially no social life in that time. I've been trapped paying half my income to live and work in a 12 square metre room with no outdoor space. There are people I've not met, experiences I haven't had, places I've not been, entirely because of an illness that poses no threat to me (or the overwhelming majority of the population now everyone has been offered a vaccination and a much milder strain has emerged). I really cannot justify pissing away more months or years of what was supposed to be a formative period of my life, so I doubt I'll respect any new restrictions moving forward.
It's been a long time since I was in my 20s.
We are not "locked down" now - we've not been so for months, arguably we've not been since May 2020. The lifting of restrictions in mid July has essentially opened up most things. Yes. masks have to be worn in some places and you may need your Covid pass but essentially you can go anywhere in England.
The last time I looked pubs and restaurants were open - if you are minded to be social and sociable, there's nothing stopping you this year - indeed, the hospitality industry will be more than happy to take you and your friends' money.
This sort of 'theres nothing stopping you' except a list of things which make life much less fun is exactly what annoys me about people supporting and calling for rules. They're calling for rules on other people.
Lets get back to normal, eh?
I am not calling for rules, just pointing out that the rules that we have do not constitute preventing people from socialising, drinking, dancing or travelling. Anyone who feels locked down is only locking themselves down. There is no rule stopping people enjoying themselves.
It's not as simple as that, though. I'm super happy tonight, I feel like a huge weight has been lifted. It's news in the right direction for the first time in weeks.
The sense that our freedom to enjoy life is at the whim of some politician, some civil servant/scientist, is tiring and overbearing. That just a rumour of a new variant could lead to another lockdown.
Much of my Christmas has been destroyed by Omichron. Delighted that Hogmanay might just pull through.
That's it exactly. Winning will be when we can once again enjoy our lives, or not, without the feeling that the freedom to do so is not dependent on the caprices of some civil servant.
"Omicron is roughly two-thirds less likely to cause hospitalisation than the delta variant, the first real-world UK study suggests."
Telegraph headline.
Cabinet: 1; SAGE: 0
Indeed. I remember being told that it would always be preferable to live under the rule of unelected experts rather than know nothing politicians. Sometimes the know nothing politicians have got a much better feel for what's happening than the experts who can't see beyond their numbers and modelled data.
Yea, it generally works except when the politicians really do know nothing and when their leader would be better placed as a crowd pleaser at Billy Smart's.
Under Labour "following the science" Christmas would have been cancelled again and we'd be in lockdown until the end of January at least. We'd never have properly got rid of restrictions either in July. Sometimes not being dazzled by experts armed with big numbers is good for us, in fact I'd say that more than sometimes experts wielding big numbers deserve scepticism.
Early days yet, mind.
Yes indeed
@MaxPB! Remember the last time I had to warn you about breaking the Second Law of Covid Hubris - we got Omicron about a week later...
Let our cheers be muted and wary, for now
If our politicians didn't run around like headless chickens at the drop of a hat Omicron would barely have registered as an issue.
Just catching up on things, but do you see any chance of new restrictions being agreed in England despite this data?
I'm not convinced this will see the likes of Gove drop the prospect of new measures. So I worry as to what their reaction will be if cases spike dramatically from here in the New Year.
I just don't see how Boris would be able to get it past Cabinet and the wider party. I'm also not convinced that Boris is actually in favour either. From my understanding, Rishi aligned most of the cabinet behind his position of "wait for actual data not models" and the actual data is coming out at least where the JP Morgan models indicated wrt disease severity (maybe better, they said half, it may be two thirds) and 3 dose vaccine efficacy seems to be coming well above what the models used and above what JP Morgan used.
Again, and this is just from what I've heard and read, the JP Morgan model report and the Fraser Nelson article was very widely shared among Tory MPs and ministers the day before the cabinet meeting. This is now the baseline for no lockdown and if actual data comes in better than even that it's tough to see how lockdown would get approved.
The Fraser Nelson article was, by all accounts, crucial at the Cabinet. Including his Twitter exchange with the SAGE guy
We have government by Spectator journalist. Obvs. Makes sense to me. Good move
Yes, it completely destroyed the credibility of the modelled numbers, I've heard that by the end only Javid and Gove were defending them as potentially accurate with many others saying that other countries have shown Omicron isn't as bad as Delta and these numbers assume that it is so they can't be right.
He could have averted £30bn in lockdown costs and tax rises to pay for it with that article and twitter exchange!
Comments
Who will tell the children? Including Leon!
Again, and this is just from what I've heard and read, the JP Morgan model report and the Fraser Nelson article was very widely shared among Tory MPs and ministers the day before the cabinet meeting. This is now the baseline for no lockdown and if actual data comes in better than even that it's tough to see how lockdown would get approved.
In my counter-factual, Gordon Brown is hurled into space, to orbit the nearest star with his overweight wife, thus solving two problems. 1 Somewhere safe for her to sit, and 2, him. Also, Iraq doesn't happen. Yes yes, bear with me
My second favour from fortune is to ask that Blair realises the genuine threat of Brexit (he seems to understand Brexit, now, better than anyone else on the Left, so it is not mad) and he actually negotiates a meaningful reform-EU deal, he calls a referendum, we vote to stay in this reformed EU, and SO MUCH AWFUL FUCKING SHIT IS AVOIDED
Sigh. But these are my day dreams, and such is my life
I'd vote for a "Blair Party" tomorrow. He is 700% smarter, even in his dotage, than anyone else on the UK political scene
We have government by Spectator journalist. Obvs. Makes sense to me. Good move
After a 15-month long battle, the Government has finally released reports on the effect of Covid restrictions on minority groups. The results make for predictably grim reading.
Overall, they describe a catalogue of harms from March to June last year, which disproportionately affected the most vulnerable. The documents state that LGBT+ groups, women (including pregnant women), the poor, young and old, ethnic minorities, and disabled people have all been the most negatively affected by lockdowns and restrictions.
https://unherd.com/thepost/government-lockdowns-hurt-minority-groups-most/
New Thread
He could have averted £30bn in lockdown costs and tax rises to pay for it with that article and twitter exchange!