And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Eh? I said I hope I am wrong, that is not implying it will happen for 100%.
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
Here's a recent quote where you say that the studies show the drop in immunity means more people in hospital, and that to disagree with that is to disagree with the studies. The studies have not demonstrated that a drop in immunity will result in more people in hospital. They have said that in a worst-case scenario, with various caveats with regards to their model, it may lead to more people in hospital.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
If immunity wanes, more people will end up in hospital. That is what the studies say.
I am not saying that immunity will absolutely wane - but that is what the studies say is a strong possibility.
You must agree with the implication or you wouldn't support boosters.
No, that is not what they say. They say it *may* happen, with various caveats about the incompleteness of their model, in a worst-case scenario. That is not the same as saying something will happen, which implies there is no doubt that it won't happen.
Bloody hell, I disappear for a while and return to find a million posts and still going on waning immunity yes/no/don't know; though far be it from me to comment on either repetition or speculation.
Meanwhile, I gather Big G still has no intention of voting for Drakeford.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
No you've misunderstood and are misrepresenting the studies. As others have tried to clear up with you.
The idea of all immunity waning has been modelled and it's bad if that happens but it's not predicted. It isn't what the models are saying will happen.
It's no different to modelling what happens if an asteroid strikes. Doesn't mean we should expect an asteroid strike next Thursday and 10:32pm.
I never said all immunity would wane, why don't you try reading what I actually write rather than the posts you make up in your head.
You don't like lockdowns, we get it. And you will point to anything that validates that POV. I am more cautious, I am reading and repeating what the studies say - and they make note of waning immunity being a concern.
Please quote chapter and verse where the studies say what you claim they say. Because many have now said that they don't say what you're saying.
I posted it earlier, I am not going to keep re-posting the same thing over and over.
Why don't you post evidence for "everything is fine, just infect each other"? Just like the evidence of herd immunity we're still waiting for from last year?
The evidence of herd immunity earlier in the year is that exponential growth stopped in its tracks and the numbers plateaued with no restrictions at R=1. R=1 is herd immunity.
Obviously that's no longer the case with the new variant.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
The Imperial paper is a modelling report. The ‘immunity’ they use is the efficacy of circulating antibodies, and explicitly doesn’t include the other arms of the immune system. The paper I posted suggests the uncertainties (which is what they are, so ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ doesn’t come int it) are likely to be as much on the upside as the downside.
In any event, we will know within a week or so.
Don't worry, we'll find something else to argue about in a week's time.
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Eh? I said I hope I am wrong, that is not implying it will happen for 100%.
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
Here's a recent quote where you say that the studies show the drop in immunity means more people in hospital, and that to disagree with that is to disagree with the studies. The studies have not demonstrated that a drop in immunity will result in more people in hospital. They have said that in a worst-case scenario, with various caveats with regards to their model, it may lead to more people in hospital.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
If immunity wanes, more people will end up in hospital. That is what the studies say.
I am not saying that immunity will absolutely wane - but that is what the studies say is a strong possibility.
You must agree with the implication or you wouldn't support boosters.
No, that is not what they say. They say it *may* happen, with various caveats about the incompleteness of their model, in a worst-case scenario. That is not the same as saying something will happen, which implies there is no doubt that it won't happen.
If immunity in the population reduces, it's surely quite reasonable to suggest more people will end up in hospital. As immunity now being high, reduces the amount of people being in hospital.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
The bit we probably don’t agree on, how long the smell lingers once bin with the fish head in taken out the house.
I just cannot see Boris recovering, as he is now so much associated with one rule for us, one rule for everyone else
But how quickly do conservatives recover once he’s gone? Has he led them into a policy cul-de-sac? Surely everyday this next election loser stays now is one less day to scrub the stink off?
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
The models have good outcomes. They have bad outcomes. They have some very bad outcomes. They have outcomes where different people will disagree on whether the outcomes are good or bad or somewhere in between. They have outcomes where different people disagree on the extent to which we should take pro-active (and, particularly, damaging) action to mitigate. There are some who think that no outcomes justify some of the things the Govt has done.
Furthermore the models acknowledge that they are based on significant uncertainties which can only be filled with real world data. A bone of contention in the debate on this thread is the extent to which accumulated knowledge about how viruses and the immune system work in general should be assumed within the model. The approach of the modellers (or those providing inputs to the modellers) appears to be “not much”. They want Covid specific data.
Anyway, i’ve had enough - i’ve tried to explain my position and understanding enough times, but it obviously isn’t working.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
That was Richard III.
Anyway, we definitively junked divine right monarchy in the 17th Century.
I'm not weighing in on the debate but it's amusing how the people who are most keen typically to call for investment are those appalled at the idea of investing in a yacht to potentially get trade deals etc
While those who are typically least keen on investment in general suddenly find it to be a great idea.
Provide evidence a yacht improves the chances of getting a trade deal.
I'm all for sensible investment that generates a return, your point is utterly absurd
As I said I'm not weighing in on this personally. I'm not certain so have no strong opinions either way.
It's advocates certainly believe it will provide a return on investment.
But the people keenest to leap on any investment normally are against this and vice versa. For someone with no dog in this fight, it's amusing.
I'm keen in investment, and I think a Royal Yacht *could* be a good idea - as ever, the implementation matters. I also agree with Carnyx's comment wrt crewing it.
It could be brilliant for the country; it could be a dud.
Also, just thinking: you'd need an armed escort warship or two, in the current security situation (think Horn of Africa, South China Sea, etc. When there aren't enough to escort the other QE2 or PoW. And just think of the impression given when one of the Daring class breaks down.
In the old days (pre Britannia) they converted the RN's newest and best battleship (yes, the kind with thick armour and **** off guns) and sent it and its crew round the world with the young Princess Elizabeth. No need for an escort then ...
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
I broadly agree with the idea, but last year a US expert put a much higher figure* proportionally on doing the same thing for schools in the US. And he also concluded it wasn't really feasible as the supply simply didn't exist to do the job at that time. Look at the bottom of the article, New York City alone is distributing 100,000 HEPA purifiers. It is probably a good idea, and certainly better than many other measures that have been taken, but good air filtration fitted to schools will take quite a bit of time and almost certainly a lot more than £140 million.
* I don't remember exactly what it was but it was many billions of dollars to fit and supply all US classrooms.
The new Royal Yacht is another global Britain pile of guff that’s supposed to dupe the plebs that Brexit is some huge success .
It’s a total waste of money but its small change compared to the hundreds of billions of lost trade that went down the toilet due to the lunacy that engulfed 52% on that infamous day !
The search party continues on its mission to find a benefit of Brexit !
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Eh? I said I hope I am wrong, that is not implying it will happen for 100%.
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
Here's a recent quote where you say that the studies show the drop in immunity means more people in hospital, and that to disagree with that is to disagree with the studies. The studies have not demonstrated that a drop in immunity will result in more people in hospital. They have said that in a worst-case scenario, with various caveats with regards to their model, it may lead to more people in hospital.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
If immunity wanes, more people will end up in hospital. That is what the studies say.
I am not saying that immunity will absolutely wane - but that is what the studies say is a strong possibility.
You must agree with the implication or you wouldn't support boosters.
What are you talking about?
If immunity wanes then we do another booster in the future when it does.
What's your problem with that? Why hyperventilation over something that won't be an issue for another six months or so at least by which time there'll be next gen vaccines to boost with probably anyway?
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Eh? I said I hope I am wrong, that is not implying it will happen for 100%.
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
Here's a recent quote where you say that the studies show the drop in immunity means more people in hospital, and that to disagree with that is to disagree with the studies. The studies have not demonstrated that a drop in immunity will result in more people in hospital. They have said that in a worst-case scenario, with various caveats with regards to their model, it may lead to more people in hospital.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
If immunity wanes, more people will end up in hospital. That is what the studies say.
I am not saying that immunity will absolutely wane - but that is what the studies say is a strong possibility.
You must agree with the implication or you wouldn't support boosters.
No, that is not what they say. They say it *may* happen, with various caveats about the incompleteness of their model, in a worst-case scenario. That is not the same as saying something will happen, which implies there is no doubt that it won't happen.
If immunity in the population reduces, it's surely quite reasonable to suggest more people will end up in hospital. As immunity now being high, reduces the amount of people being in hospital.
Anyway, dinner for me
Is that a reasonable thing to suggest? I don't know. But I think it is incorrect to claim it has been conclusively demonstrated that the measured decline in antibodies means that there will be a corresponding increase in the risk of hospitalisation and death.
Sky News reporter, but why aren't we locking down....we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but Scotland and Wales have restrictions, why aren't we having new restrictions....people weren't following the rules by wearing a mask at football....that isn't the rule.....RCN says we need restrictions.....
Its like a broken record. More one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Sky have lost all balance and really just parrot anti HMG at every opportunity and of course their go to experts are isage or similar
Spider-Man is ace. Best comic book movie probably since the original Spider-Man 2 all those years ago. Highly recommended, but I'd recommend knowing Spider-Man movies beforehand and maybe the last two avengers movies.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
That was Richard III.
Anyway, we definitively junked divine right monarchy in the 17th Century.
No, Edward IV was the monarch who had Clarence sent to the tower and executed. Richard Duke of Gloucester was just made the villain of the piece by Shakespeare, complete with theatrical drowning in Malmesbury wine, he was not even monarch at the time
I'm not weighing in on the debate but it's amusing how the people who are most keen typically to call for investment are those appalled at the idea of investing in a yacht to potentially get trade deals etc
While those who are typically least keen on investment in general suddenly find it to be a great idea.
Provide evidence a yacht improves the chances of getting a trade deal.
I'm all for sensible investment that generates a return, your point is utterly absurd
As I said I'm not weighing in on this personally. I'm not certain so have no strong opinions either way.
It's advocates certainly believe it will provide a return on investment.
But the people keenest to leap on any investment normally are against this and vice versa. For someone with no dog in this fight, it's amusing.
I'm keen in investment, and I think a Royal Yacht *could* be a good idea - as ever, the implementation matters. I also agree with Carnyx's comment wrt crewing it.
It could be brilliant for the country; it could be a dud.
Also, just thinking: you'd need an armed escort warship or two, in the current security situation (think Horn of Africa, South China Sea, etc. When there aren't enough to escort the other QE2 or PoW. And just think of the impression given when one of the Daring class breaks down.
In the old days (pre Britannia) they converted the RN's newest and best battleship (yes, the kind with thick armour and **** off guns) and sent it and its crew round the world with the young Princess Elizabeth. No need for an escort then ...
ISTR from somewhere (Drachinifel?) that that was exceptionally costly. Flagships cost more than equivalent ships because of the flag requirements and extra quarters (*); the same is true for converting a warship for royal use. You also wouldn't get quite the same diplomatic effect - unless you like gunboat diplomacy.
(*) Again, ISTR that flagships can be slightly less combat effective for the same reason.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
That was Richard III.
Anyway, we definitively junked divine right monarchy in the 17th Century.
No, Edward IV was the monarch who had Clarence sent to the tower and executed. Richard Duke of Gloucester was just made the villain of the piece by Shakespeare, complete with theatrical drowning in Malmesbury wine, he was not even monarch at the time
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Eh? I said I hope I am wrong, that is not implying it will happen for 100%.
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
Here's a recent quote where you say that the studies show the drop in immunity means more people in hospital, and that to disagree with that is to disagree with the studies. The studies have not demonstrated that a drop in immunity will result in more people in hospital. They have said that in a worst-case scenario, with various caveats with regards to their model, it may lead to more people in hospital.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
If immunity wanes, more people will end up in hospital. That is what the studies say.
No it isn’t. It says they might. Under some scenarios. And with caveats. And needing more data to confirm. One could read the “studies” to take the exact opposite view.
Also “hospitalisation” isn’t the only issue. Length of stay in hospital. Link to hospitalisation and more severe outcomes is an issue. It is certainly a reasonable assumption that there is a link. And, under current protocols, hospitalisation is a problem in itself.
However some of the things proposed in response are so extreme that there should be a high burden of proof. Higher than we have anyway IMO.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
The bit we probably don’t agree on, how long the smell lingers once bin with the fish head in taken out the house.
I just cannot see Boris recovering, as he is now so much associated with one rule for us, one rule for everyone else
As long as Boris continues not to impose any more Covid rules and restrictions other than encouraging people to get their boosters he will be fine
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Eh? I said I hope I am wrong, that is not implying it will happen for 100%.
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
Here's a recent quote where you say that the studies show the drop in immunity means more people in hospital, and that to disagree with that is to disagree with the studies. The studies have not demonstrated that a drop in immunity will result in more people in hospital. They have said that in a worst-case scenario, with various caveats with regards to their model, it may lead to more people in hospital.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
If immunity wanes, more people will end up in hospital. That is what the studies say.
I am not saying that immunity will absolutely wane - but that is what the studies say is a strong possibility.
You must agree with the implication or you wouldn't support boosters.
No, that is not what they say. They say it *may* happen, with various caveats about the incompleteness of their model, in a worst-case scenario. That is not the same as saying something will happen, which implies there is no doubt that it won't happen.
If immunity in the population reduces, it's surely quite reasonable to suggest more people will end up in hospital. As immunity now being high, reduces the amount of people being in hospital.
Anyway, dinner for me
Is that a reasonable thing to suggest? I don't know. But I think it is incorrect to claim it has been conclusively demonstrated that the measured decline in antibodies means that there will be a corresponding increase in the risk of hospitalisation and death.
AIUI ( and IANAE) there will be. the B/T-cell system takes time to work compared to pre-existing antibodies; therefore, there is more time for the virus to take effect before the body's defences get fully going. This may show in increased levels of illness. If the B/T-cell system effectiveness also reduces (less likely), then the effect would be enhanced.
So no, it hasn't been conclusively shown (and that's a big ask for anything in this current situation), but it does make sense for it to be the case. The *level* of the increase is a different matter.
Sky News reporter, but why aren't we locking down....we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but Scotland and Wales have restrictions, why aren't we having new restrictions....people weren't following the rules by wearing a mask at football....that isn't the rule.....RCN says we need restrictions.....
Its like a broken record. More one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Of course, if the government brought in restrictions, the reporters would immediately start asking when these restrictions could end, why were they justified, what were they doing, why weren't they consistent with other restrictions, when could we go back to normal etc.
A good chunk of the problem is that rather than trying to do proper investigative journalism a lot of questioning just seems to be basic route one stuff of "hammer the government for doing the wrong thing regardless and see what sticks" or "ask deliberately opposing question to show 'balance'".
Sky News reporter, but why aren't we locking down....we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but Scotland and Wales have restrictions, why aren't we having new restrictions....people weren't following the rules by wearing a mask at football....that isn't the rule.....RCN says we need restrictions.....
Its like a broken record. More one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Of course, if the government brought in restrictions, the reporters would immediately start asking when these restrictions could end, why were they justified, what were they doing, why weren't they consistent with other restrictions, when could we go back to normal etc.
A good chunk of the problem is that rather than trying to do proper investigative journalism a lot of questioning just seems to be basic route one stuff of "hammer the government for doing the wrong thing regardless and see what sticks" or "ask deliberately opposing question to show 'balance'".
Modern journalism is Monty Python's Argument sketch brought to life.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
The bit we probably don’t agree on, how long the smell lingers once bin with the fish head in taken out the house.
How long the smell of the new wallpaper and paint lingers in No. 10?
The fish always rots from the head.
I have this for Jessop in reply to what he said earlier.
Probably just noise to huge testing mistake.
Symptoms are starting v early w Omicron (for a number of reasons I’ve discussed)
This means that there is a chance the virus isnt yet growing in the nose when you first test
Virus may start further down. Throat swab + nasal may improve chances a swab picks up virus. https://t.co/NfxHqjKpIo
I'm not weighing in on the debate but it's amusing how the people who are most keen typically to call for investment are those appalled at the idea of investing in a yacht to potentially get trade deals etc
While those who are typically least keen on investment in general suddenly find it to be a great idea.
Provide evidence a yacht improves the chances of getting a trade deal.
I'm all for sensible investment that generates a return, your point is utterly absurd
As I said I'm not weighing in on this personally. I'm not certain so have no strong opinions either way.
It's advocates certainly believe it will provide a return on investment.
But the people keenest to leap on any investment normally are against this and vice versa. For someone with no dog in this fight, it's amusing.
I'm keen in investment, and I think a Royal Yacht *could* be a good idea - as ever, the implementation matters. I also agree with Carnyx's comment wrt crewing it.
It could be brilliant for the country; it could be a dud.
Also, just thinking: you'd need an armed escort warship or two, in the current security situation (think Horn of Africa, South China Sea, etc. When there aren't enough to escort the other QE2 or PoW. And just think of the impression given when one of the Daring class breaks down.
In the old days (pre Britannia) they converted the RN's newest and best battleship (yes, the kind with thick armour and **** off guns) and sent it and its crew round the world with the young Princess Elizabeth. No need for an escort then ...
ISTR from somewhere (Drachinifel?) that that was exceptionally costly. Flagships cost more than equivalent ships because of the flag requirements and extra quarters (*); the same is true for converting a warship for royal use. You also wouldn't get quite the same diplomatic effect - unless you like gunboat diplomacy.
(*) Again, ISTR that flagships can be slightly less combat effective for the same reason.
Quite so, though I think in this case it was to visit the Empire -- so the local bwanas etc would find the 14" ordnance reassuring. There's a good new book on the Vanguard which goes into some detail on the conversion, I seem to recall. I forget the details, not being obsessed with the minutiae of royalty, but they had to do a lot more than just telling HRH to doss down in the admiral's stateroom. B 14" turret was converted to a Royal Podium, for instance. All those civilian courtiers to house , the hacks too. Bet my dad was glad not to get detailed on that particular commission - one Coronation Review was enough for him.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
That was Richard III.
Anyway, we definitively junked divine right monarchy in the 17th Century.
No, Edward IV was the monarch who had Clarence sent to the tower and executed. Richard Duke of Gloucester was just made the villain of the piece by Shakespeare, complete with theatrical drowning in Malmesbury wine, he was not even monarch at the time
Malmsey!
Yes, right king at the second attempt (Shakespeare has a lot to answer for,) but the wrong wine. Never mind, we'll get there eventually I'm sure.
Sky News reporter, but why aren't we locking down....we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but Scotland and Wales have restrictions, why aren't we having new restrictions....people weren't following the rules by wearing a mask at football....that isn't the rule.....RCN says we need restrictions.....
Its like a broken record. More one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
That's just journalists for you. If the Government had announced a full lockdown it would've been: "Why are we having a lockdown? You said there wouldn't be a lockdown. How will we pay for the lockdown? The data don't suggest we need a lockdown. Wales and Scotland haven't done a lockdown. What about people's mental health? How will the businesses survive? What about home schooling? The children will get even further behind, more will disappear off the rolls, and how are parents meant to cope with juggling their jobs and childcare yet again? We don't need a lockdown, do we minister? You're panicking, aren't you?"
To be followed by interviews with a member of SAGE saying the Government has over-reacted and there will be a mental health and obesity crisis caused by social isolation and enforced inactivity, followed by the Shadow Health Secretary saying we should follow the science and Javid should resign for not doing so. It's just how it is.
The whole business about whether the U.K. Govt should offer assistance to businesses impacted by non aligned Covid restrictions in the devolved nations is a tricky one. The obvious answer is “no they’ve made their beds”. But step away from the politics of it and isn’t it the case that the consequences of business failure in Scotland/Wales fall on the U.K. taxpayer? So there may be a case for offering assistance regardless.
The politics of it are a completely different matter.
I surprised that the Treasury hadn't set up an intra-UK emergency lending system for this.
The 1998 Scotland act allows the SG to borrow from HMG, but I'm not sure to what extent. Surely they could have amended that and volleyed this back at Sturgeon?
We already have higher taxes here in Scotland, so an obvious mechanism to pay back the "Marshall/Sunak plan".
The obvious plan would be to do a complex international financing arrangement via a nominal land purchase in Panama.
Bet you I could sell that to Sturgeon.
Could you please arrange for her to view it in person? It would be even better if Panama was put on a permanent red list while she was there. We could arrange a putsch in her absence, and replace her with someone who values independence over wokery.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
That was Richard III.
Anyway, we definitively junked divine right monarchy in the 17th Century.
No, Edward IV was the monarch who had Clarence sent to the tower and executed. Richard Duke of Gloucester was just made the villain of the piece by Shakespeare, complete with theatrical drowning in Malmesbury wine, he was not even monarch at the time
Malmsey!
Yes, right king at the second attempt (Shakespeare has a lot to answer for,) but the wrong wine. Never mind, we'll get there eventually I'm sure
Though I should point out, in fairness to Shakespeare, that there is no doubt Richard Duke of Gloucester supported the execution of Clarence even though he wasn't responsible for it.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
'Only the monarch is anointed by God'
Do you really believe that
The Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689, which cements in place the constitution, makes it quite clear that the monarch’s position derives from the deal between the two parties (Crown and Parliament).
It is strangely silent on God’s role in the process.
Sunak emerged as by far the most attractive successor, with Labour maintaining its lead but by just three points if the chancellor was to take over as leader.
The nine-point difference between a 12-point and three-point lead was worth about 60 seats that Tories would lose with Johnson but retain with Sunak, the polling suggested.
There seems to be a lot of assumption that restrictions or not will have a huge impact on people's VI. Is there any evidence for this? Cos, tbh I'm not picking it up outwith this board.
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Eh? I said I hope I am wrong, that is not implying it will happen for 100%.
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
Here's a recent quote where you say that the studies show the drop in immunity means more people in hospital, and that to disagree with that is to disagree with the studies. The studies have not demonstrated that a drop in immunity will result in more people in hospital. They have said that in a worst-case scenario, with various caveats with regards to their model, it may lead to more people in hospital.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
If immunity wanes, more people will end up in hospital. That is what the studies say.
I am not saying that immunity will absolutely wane - but that is what the studies say is a strong possibility.
You must agree with the implication or you wouldn't support boosters.
What are you talking about?
If immunity wanes then we do another booster in the future when it does.
What's your problem with that? Why hyperventilation over something that won't be an issue for another six months or so at least by which time there'll be next gen vaccines to boost with probably anyway?
I think this is a bit periferal to the discussion going on. There are some studies suggesting boosters wane a lot quicker than that. And the idea of boosters every few months is simply unsustainable - and couldn’t be better designed to ensure that Covid never moves on from being at the centre of everything that Govt does. But this quite possibly doesn’t matter significantly. Because of all the other features of the immune system as discussed in this thread.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
That was Richard III.
Anyway, we definitively junked divine right monarchy in the 17th Century.
No, Edward IV was the monarch who had Clarence sent to the tower and executed. Richard Duke of Gloucester was just made the villain of the piece by Shakespeare, complete with theatrical drowning in Malmesbury wine, he was not even monarch at the time
Malmsey!
It’s the alternate PB spelling. Shakespeare was notoriously lax about such things.
Sunak emerged as by far the most attractive successor, with Labour maintaining its lead but by just three points if the chancellor was to take over as leader.
The nine-point difference between a 12-point and three-point lead was worth about 60 seats that Tories would lose with Johnson but retain with Sunak, the polling suggested.
So there is your answer
Truss leads the Tories to a 16% defeat by Labour and a 1997 style mere 162 seats, Gove to an 18% defeat by Labour on the same poll and even worse 138 seats.
As I said only a Sunak leadership does better than Boris but at present he might lose the leadership vote amongst members
Sunak emerged as by far the most attractive successor, with Labour maintaining its lead but by just three points if the chancellor was to take over as leader.
The nine-point difference between a 12-point and three-point lead was worth about 60 seats that Tories would lose with Johnson but retain with Sunak, the polling suggested.
So there is your answer
Truss leads the Tories to a 12% defeat by Labour and Gove to an 18% defeat by Labour on the same poll.
As I said only a Sunak leadership does better than Boris but at present he might lose the leadership vote amongst members
It's not the same as when Johnson initially stood though, Sunak still short of a majority and so it does suggest the voters are still not behind the Tories at present.
I think - and this is my 2022 prediction - Sunak will drop into net negative early on and his popularity will crater
Sunak emerged as by far the most attractive successor, with Labour maintaining its lead but by just three points if the chancellor was to take over as leader.
The nine-point difference between a 12-point and three-point lead was worth about 60 seats that Tories would lose with Johnson but retain with Sunak, the polling suggested.
So there is your answer
Truss leads the Tories to a 16% defeat by Labour and a 1997 style mere 162 seats, Gove to an 18% defeat by Labour on the same poll and even worse 138 seats.
As I said only a Sunak leadership does better than Boris but at present he might lose the leadership vote amongst members
If truss takes over and s***s the bed in 2024, who would take over from her I wonder?
Only just discovered the Glasgow vs Edinburgh rugby match is off due to Sturgeon.
Bugger
Corrected
If you are going to edit someone else's post for 'comic effect' or to make a point, the decent thing to do is to use the html strike tag to make it clear what you have changed. It's not difficult.
Sunak emerged as by far the most attractive successor, with Labour maintaining its lead but by just three points if the chancellor was to take over as leader.
The nine-point difference between a 12-point and three-point lead was worth about 60 seats that Tories would lose with Johnson but retain with Sunak, the polling suggested.
So there is your answer
Truss leads the Tories to a 16% defeat by Labour and a 1997 style mere 162 seats, Gove to an 18% defeat by Labour on the same poll and even worse 138 seats.
As I said only a Sunak leadership does better than Boris but at present he might lose the leadership vote amongst members
And they’d deserve to lose 1997 style with Truss in charge
Only just discovered the Glasgow vs Edinburgh rugby match is off due to Sturgeon.
Bugger
Corrected
If you are going to edit someone else's post for 'comic effect' or to make a point, the decent thing to do is to use the html strike tag to make it clear what you have changed. It's not difficult.
This may be a daft point. But I've never known how to do that.
The Tories aren't going to ditch Johnson anytime soon imo. For all their alleged 'ruthlessness' Tory MPs have generally got as much backbone as a tin of maggots.
Look how long it took them to get rid of May after a disasterous sequence of election results. Major wasn't ditched after 1995 even though the Tories were clearly headed for an electoral drubbing.
If Johnson goes ahead of GE24 it will be because he has decided he's had enough.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
That was Richard III.
Anyway, we definitively junked divine right monarchy in the 17th Century.
No, Edward IV was the monarch who had Clarence sent to the tower and executed. Richard Duke of Gloucester was just made the villain of the piece by Shakespeare, complete with theatrical drowning in Malmesbury wine, he was not even monarch at the time
Malmsey!
It’s the alternate PB spelling. Shakespeare was notoriously lax about such things.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
That was Richard III.
Anyway, we definitively junked divine right monarchy in the 17th Century.
No, Edward IV was the monarch who had Clarence sent to the tower and executed. Richard Duke of Gloucester was just made the villain of the piece by Shakespeare, complete with theatrical drowning in Malmesbury wine, he was not even monarch at the time
Malmsey!
It’s the alternate PB spelling. Shakespeare was notoriously lax about such things.
Only just discovered the Glasgow vs Edinburgh rugby match is off due to Sturgeon.
Bugger
Corrected
If you are going to edit someone else's post for 'comic effect' or to make a point, the decent thing to do is to use the html strike tag to make it clear what you have changed. It's not difficult.
This may be a daft point. But I've never known how to do that.
Ok fair enough, but in which case you'd probably not try the 'corrected for you' gambit.
I assume you can see from where you quoted me the strike /strike tags so you know now?
There seems to be a lot of assumption that restrictions or not will have a huge impact on people's VI. Is there any evidence for this? Cos, tbh I'm not picking it up outwith this board.
Not as far as I know. I strongly believe this to be true but it's purely "gut" instinct and logic for me.
Only just discovered the Glasgow vs Edinburgh rugby match is off due to Sturgeon.
Bugger
Corrected
If you are going to edit someone else's post for 'comic effect' or to make a point, the decent thing to do is to use the html strike tag to make it clear what you have changed. It's not difficult.
This may be a daft point. But I've never known how to do that.
Ok fair enough, but in which case you'd probably not try the 'corrected for you' gambit.
I assume you can see from where you quoted me the strike /strike tags so you know now?
Sunak emerged as by far the most attractive successor, with Labour maintaining its lead but by just three points if the chancellor was to take over as leader.
The nine-point difference between a 12-point and three-point lead was worth about 60 seats that Tories would lose with Johnson but retain with Sunak, the polling suggested.
So there is your answer
Truss leads the Tories to a 16% defeat by Labour and a 1997 style mere 162 seats, Gove to an 18% defeat by Labour on the same poll and even worse 138 seats.
As I said only a Sunak leadership does better than Boris but at present he might lose the leadership vote amongst members
What the polling does show is that people are still not conviced by Starmer. His ratings may be rising but that seems to be driven more by what people think of BJ, not what they think of Starmer. That means that Starmer's approval - and Labour's chances - are effectively at the mercy of what the Tories do.
In retrospect, the whole Paterson thing may turn out to the best thing for the Tories if it shakes them out of the complacency that they can do what they want and still win. There is an argument for saying the lack of polling movement post-Cummings may have encouraged some hubris.
For all his faults, one thing that BJ's career shows is that he changes direction when he knows he's f**ked up. Personal view is that, in 2022, he will come back and the polling will reverse out again. That might be a rubbish prediction but nothing so far suggests Starmer is the new Blair.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
Look, I posted the study, if you disagree with the study that is fine but there are clearly concerns around immunity waning and a reduction in immunity will result in a lot more people in hospital.
Let's hope the T-cells help to workaround such a problem but I will continue to raise concerns rather than just "everything is fine"
The study talks about declining levels of neutralising antibodies and then notes that this may result reduced vaccine efficacy although this may be offset by T-cell mediated immunity
You have a limited understanding of immunology (as do I, to be honest) and you have misread a study to come out with doom laden prognostications.
Sky News reporter, but why aren't we locking down....we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but Scotland and Wales have restrictions, why aren't we having new restrictions....people weren't following the rules by wearing a mask at football....that isn't the rule.....RCN says we need restrictions.....
Its like a broken record. More one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Sky have lost all balance and really just parrot anti HMG at every opportunity and of course their go to experts are isage or similar
The culture at Sky is actually remarkably similar to the other broadcasting media and is moving more so since Comcast took over. Apparently, they are pushing the diversity agenda a lot more aggressively on the inside
The whole business about whether the U.K. Govt should offer assistance to businesses impacted by non aligned Covid restrictions in the devolved nations is a tricky one. The obvious answer is “no they’ve made their beds”. But step away from the politics of it and isn’t it the case that the consequences of business failure in Scotland/Wales fall on the U.K. taxpayer? So there may be a case for offering assistance regardless.
The politics of it are a completely different matter.
Shouldn’t it come out of the devolved budget governments? Otherwise you have a free rider problem
Look, I posted the study, if you disagree with the study that is fine but there are clearly concerns around immunity waning and a reduction in immunity will result in a lot more people in hospital.
Let's hope the T-cells help to workaround such a problem but I will continue to raise concerns rather than just "everything is fine"
The study talks about declining levels of neutralising antibodies and then notes that this may result reduced vaccine efficacy although this may be offset by T-cell mediated immunity
You have a limited understanding of immunology (as do I, to be honest) and you have misread a study to come out with doom laden prognostications.
You’re in good company - many immunologists who know vastly more than either of us would say the same.
There seems to be a lot of assumption that restrictions or not will have a huge impact on people's VI. Is there any evidence for this? Cos, tbh I'm not picking it up outwith this board.
Not as far as I know. I strongly believe this to be true but it's purely "gut" instinct and logic for me.
Fair enough. And I can see from here that it is really important to some people. The impression I get is folk generally don't want restrictions, but fear they may be necessary. And for a lot it's priced in in January. Not sure them not happening will be a cause of widespread rejoicing mind. Plan B has had no impact whatsoever on any aspect of my life. Not sure it has even registered on most people's consciousness.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
The bit we probably don’t agree on, how long the smell lingers once bin with the fish head in taken out the house.
I just cannot see Boris recovering, as he is now so much associated with one rule for us, one rule for everyone else
As long as Boris continues not to impose any more Covid rules and restrictions other than encouraging people to get their boosters he will be fine
I think one thing that has impacted BJ re the restrictions is that many of the newly won 2019 voters saw in him someone who would not just blindly follow what he was told. In that regards, I suspect the lockdown restrictions - especially the latest ones around Christmas - really did hurt him because people would have expected him to be "we need to get on with life!". Instead, they got someone who reacted in the same way as Teresa May would have done. He can reverse that out if he keeps his nerve and doesn't pile on more restrictions.
PS I'm in the US at the moment (LA to be precise) and any idea that the US is handling things better than the UK is a farce - it's a sh1t show over here at the moment and I don't think the many cancelled flights over Christmas are going to help things out.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
Look, I posted the study, if you disagree with the study that is fine but there are clearly concerns around immunity waning and a reduction in immunity will result in a lot more people in hospital.
Let's hope the T-cells help to workaround such a problem but I will continue to raise concerns rather than just "everything is fine"
The study talks about declining levels of neutralising antibodies and then notes that this may result reduced vaccine efficacy although this may be offset by T-cell mediated immunity
You have a limited understanding of immunology (as do I, to be honest) and you have misread a study to come out with doom laden prognostications.
Just as much uncertainty in you sitting on here and shouting "everything is fine". I have not misunderstood anything - I reposted what the study said.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
Sunak emerged as by far the most attractive successor, with Labour maintaining its lead but by just three points if the chancellor was to take over as leader.
The nine-point difference between a 12-point and three-point lead was worth about 60 seats that Tories would lose with Johnson but retain with Sunak, the polling suggested.
So there is your answer
Truss leads the Tories to a 16% defeat by Labour and a 1997 style mere 162 seats, Gove to an 18% defeat by Labour on the same poll and even worse 138 seats.
As I said only a Sunak leadership does better than Boris but at present he might lose the leadership vote amongst members
What the polling does show is that people are still not conviced by Starmer. His ratings may be rising but that seems to be driven more by what people think of BJ, not what they think of Starmer. That means that Starmer's approval - and Labour's chances - are effectively at the mercy of what the Tories do.
In retrospect, the whole Paterson thing may turn out to the best thing for the Tories if it shakes them out of the complacency that they can do what they want and still win. There is an argument for saying the lack of polling movement post-Cummings may have encouraged some hubris.
For all his faults, one thing that BJ's career shows is that he changes direction when he knows he's f**ked up. Personal view is that, in 2022, he will come back and the polling will reverse out again. That might be a rubbish prediction but nothing so far suggests Starmer is the new Blair.
Why can't Starmer's ratings rise be driven by his own good performance? There seems to be denial from a few that he is actually doing a good job, no instead it must be because of Johnson
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
It does NOT say that
Yes it does
"Don't look up!"
I've said my piece. I just get told I am wrong even though those that say "everything is fine, infect everyone" are being just as presumptuous as me
I have zero musical talent, and I have a jealous admiration for those who do. That was incredible.
A dear friend of mine can listen to any tune (at least, any I played her) and play it passably on the piano after one hearing. After a couple of listens and attempts she can be near note-perfect. Including a couple of rap 'tunes'.
BTW, am I the only PBer to have had their singing mentioned in a published book?
There seems to be a lot of assumption that restrictions or not will have a huge impact on people's VI. Is there any evidence for this? Cos, tbh I'm not picking it up outwith this board.
Not as far as I know. I strongly believe this to be true but it's purely "gut" instinct and logic for me.
Fair enough. And I can see from here that it is really important to some people. The impression I get is folk generally don't want restrictions, but fear they may be necessary. And for a lot it's priced in in January. Not sure them not happening will be a cause of widespread rejoicing mind. Plan B has had no impact whatsoever on any aspect of my life. Not sure it has even registered on most people's consciousness.
I doubt that can be true - although for huge numbers it has been a positive - those who had to be dragged kicking and screaming back into the office, and obviously returned to their life of work solitude with no concerns at all.
The Tories aren't going to ditch Johnson anytime soon imo. For all their alleged 'ruthlessness' Tory MPs have generally got as much backbone as a tin of maggots.
Look how long it took them to get rid of May after a disasterous sequence of election results. Major wasn't ditched after 1995 even though the Tories were clearly headed for an electoral drubbing.
If Johnson goes ahead of GE24 it will be because he has decided he's had enough.
No polling in 1995 suggested Heseltine or Portillo polling better v Blair than Major and Redwood polled worse. In 1990 by contrast Major led v Kinnock as did Heseltine while Thatcher trailed as they promised to ditch the poll tax. In 2019 Boris led Corbyn while May trailed as he promised to deliver Brexit.
Now it is more like Labour pre 2010, only Sunak polls better than Boris as David Miliband only did better than Brown but neither led polls v Cameron or Starmer as no major policy difference from the incumbent. As 2010 proved David Miliband could not win the Labour electoral college anyway, as Sunak now trails on the latest Tory ConHome members survey
At last we have some polling with "alternative" Conservative leadership candidates.
There's an improvement with Sunak - the problem with Liz Truss is no one knows who she is (to be fair, no one really knew John Major in October 1990 even though he had been Foreign Secretary (albeit briefly) and Chancellor) so with some decent media exposure I would expect her numbers to improve.
From the outside, the scenario of Sunak replacing Johnson is analogous to Brown replacing Blair. Brown, it should be remembered, did enjoy a honeymoon period in the summer and early autumn of 2007 before Osborne's speech on IHT (arguably the most significant party conference speech of recent times) dented his prospects and between that and Northern Rock, Brown was always on the back foot from there.
The best scenario for Sunak is a coronation and a quick election. @HYUFD, who of course knows the Conservative Party far better than I, isn't so convinced he would win the membership vote which is interesting.
At present, the advantage in getting rid of Johnson just isn't there so they have to "keep buggering on". @MrEd may be right and Johnson will come bouncing back in 2022 - I do think there will be a significant Government relaunch sooner or later.
As we've seen, in lieu of mandated restrictions, people are taking their own risk assessments and some have decided to reduce social contact while others haven't. I'm to be convinced there's huge political capital for Johnson in not imposing restrictions and he'll get little thanks if he waits until next week before doing something.
Sometimes you're damned if you don't and you're damned if you do.
Wes Streeting MP @wesstreeting After a difficult 2021, people will be relieved to see no new restrictions ahead of the new year, but we need reassurance that this is the right decision being taken for the right reasons and that schools and the NHS will be able to cope.
I'm not weighing in on the debate but it's amusing how the people who are most keen typically to call for investment are those appalled at the idea of investing in a yacht to potentially get trade deals etc
While those who are typically least keen on investment in general suddenly find it to be a great idea.
Provide evidence a yacht improves the chances of getting a trade deal.
I'm all for sensible investment that generates a return, your point is utterly absurd
As I said I'm not weighing in on this personally. I'm not certain so have no strong opinions either way.
It's advocates certainly believe it will provide a return on investment.
But the people keenest to leap on any investment normally are against this and vice versa. For someone with no dog in this fight, it's amusing.
I'm keen in investment, and I think a Royal Yacht *could* be a good idea - as ever, the implementation matters. I also agree with Carnyx's comment wrt crewing it.
It could be brilliant for the country; it could be a dud.
Also, just thinking: you'd need an armed escort warship or two, in the current security situation (think Horn of Africa, South China Sea, etc. When there aren't enough to escort the other QE2 or PoW. And just think of the impression given when one of the Daring class breaks down.
In the old days (pre Britannia) they converted the RN's newest and best battleship (yes, the kind with thick armour and **** off guns) and sent it and its crew round the world with the young Princess Elizabeth. No need for an escort then ...
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
It does NOT say that
Yes it does
"Don't look up!"
I've said my piece. I just get told I am wrong even though those that say "everything is fine, infect everyone" are being just as presumptuous as me
You're not being told you're wrong, you're being told/argued against that you're misrepresenting the study as offering definitive conclusions on the impact of the decline of primary active antibody driven immunity, when it doesn't.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
The bit we probably don’t agree on, how long the smell lingers once bin with the fish head in taken out the house.
I just cannot see Boris recovering, as he is now so much associated with one rule for us, one rule for everyone else
As long as Boris continues not to impose any more Covid rules and restrictions other than encouraging people to get their boosters he will be fine
That's another reason why Boris has to be defenestrated. The risk of his need for personal political survival impacting on effective policy more than it has already (which imo is not *that* much).
The whole business about whether the U.K. Govt should offer assistance to businesses impacted by non aligned Covid restrictions in the devolved nations is a tricky one. The obvious answer is “no they’ve made their beds”. But step away from the politics of it and isn’t it the case that the consequences of business failure in Scotland/Wales fall on the U.K. taxpayer? So there may be a case for offering assistance regardless.
The politics of it are a completely different matter.
Shouldn’t it come out of the devolved budget governments? Otherwise you have a free rider problem
No, Westminster is responsible for reserved competences. The fact that UK Government spending is necessitated by the exercise of devolved powers is, I'm afraid, one of the manifold iniquities of the ill-conceived model of devolution that the Blair Government created, and which no subsequent ministry has possessed the will to correct.
The devolved administrations are responsible for the bulk of domestic policy and ought therefore also to control most of their own tax base and have significant, though not complete, discretion to borrow. This wouldn't mean the end of fiscal transfers, but it would make them a great deal less critical to the operation of devolution than the current system of funding by bloc grant and Barnett consequentials.
Then if Wales, for example, wanted a different and harsher regime of public health measures to that chosen by Westminster for England, it would have the ability to pay for the consequences of them itself.
There seems to be a lot of assumption that restrictions or not will have a huge impact on people's VI. Is there any evidence for this? Cos, tbh I'm not picking it up outwith this board.
Not as far as I know. I strongly believe this to be true but it's purely "gut" instinct and logic for me.
Fair enough. And I can see from here that it is really important to some people. The impression I get is folk generally don't want restrictions, but fear they may be necessary. And for a lot it's priced in in January. Not sure them not happening will be a cause of widespread rejoicing mind. Plan B has had no impact whatsoever on any aspect of my life. Not sure it has even registered on most people's consciousness.
As far as restrictions are concerned it's a bit like fate playing "heads I win, tails you lose" with Boris at the moment.
Those who oppose restrictions are pissed off they're happening. Those who want harder restrictions are pissed off they're not happening. Those who reluctantly accept current restrictions because they're afraid aren't happy to be afraid.
So the electorate is grumpy. Deservedly so too.
If more restrictions aren't imposed and the problem passes then the electorate may be relieved and less grumpy.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
The bit we probably don’t agree on, how long the smell lingers once bin with the fish head in taken out the house.
I just cannot see Boris recovering, as he is now so much associated with one rule for us, one rule for everyone else
As long as Boris continues not to impose any more Covid rules and restrictions other than encouraging people to get their boosters he will be fine
That's another reason why Boris has to be defenestrated. The risk of his need for personal political survival impacting on effective policy more than it has already (which imo is not *that* much).
That's one reason he should survive. The PM should be listening to politics too and not just "science".
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
Mr HYUFD, I have an invisible Garden Bridge Mr Johnson would like to sell to you. A beautiful spot on the River Thames and yours for just £63m (sold as seen).
Mr Johnson also had two water cannon to sell you, they were complete until Mayor Khan dismantled them, nonetheless if you have a use for them, I am sure we can deal ... maybe over drinks on the Royal Yacht Brexit.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
I broadly agree with the idea, but last year a US expert put a much higher figure* proportionally on doing the same thing for schools in the US. And he also concluded it wasn't really feasible as the supply simply didn't exist to do the job at that time. Look at the bottom of the article, New York City alone is distributing 100,000 HEPA purifiers. It is probably a good idea, and certainly better than many other measures that have been taken, but good air filtration fitted to schools will take quite a bit of time and almost certainly a lot more than £140 million.
* I don't remember exactly what it was but it was many billions of dollars to fit and supply all US classrooms.
I think we are being subjected to Lib Dem Maths in search of a headline.
A normal classroom is a little under 200 cubic metres, and has around 30 people in it for 6-7 hours a day. Can anyone come up with a public building enclosed space grade HEPA air purifier, and deliver, certify (PAT test etc), and fit it for £230?
There seems to be a lot of assumption that restrictions or not will have a huge impact on people's VI. Is there any evidence for this? Cos, tbh I'm not picking it up outwith this board.
Not as far as I know. I strongly believe this to be true but it's purely "gut" instinct and logic for me.
Fair enough. And I can see from here that it is really important to some people. The impression I get is folk generally don't want restrictions, but fear they may be necessary. And for a lot it's priced in in January. Not sure them not happening will be a cause of widespread rejoicing mind. Plan B has had no impact whatsoever on any aspect of my life. Not sure it has even registered on most people's consciousness.
Restrictions are pretty much the primary driver of my VI. I thought the Lib Dems under the previous leadership were ridiculous - basically Remain and Transsexuals - but my view is they've quiet and consistently been on the side of liberty these last two years; more inclines to ask questions of the lockdowners than the Conservatives, and much more inclined than Labour.
My vote next time around will be for whoever is most likely to resist lockdowns, even if that person has a view opposite mine on Europe or taxation. Although there will necessarily be a need to consider whether anyone is realistically placed to beat my pro-lockdown Labour MP (almost certainly not, leaving me free to vote for who I like).
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
It does NOT say that
Yes it does
YAY PANTO SEASON.
We can't have one at the theatre so we'll have it here.
The Tories aren't going to ditch Johnson anytime soon imo. For all their alleged 'ruthlessness' Tory MPs have generally got as much backbone as a tin of maggots.
Look how long it took them to get rid of May after a disasterous sequence of election results. Major wasn't ditched after 1995 even though the Tories were clearly headed for an electoral drubbing.
If Johnson goes ahead of GE24 it will be because he has decided he's had enough.
Who was the bugger moaning that Only Connect has been dumbed down? Not a bloody question got so far.
Ooh, I'll look forward to that! Semi final stages are always enjoyably impossible. My television watching for the next week however is going to be governed by the World's Strongest Man schedules.
Look, I posted the study, if you disagree with the study that is fine but there are clearly concerns around immunity waning and a reduction in immunity will result in a lot more people in hospital.
Let's hope the T-cells help to workaround such a problem but I will continue to raise concerns rather than just "everything is fine"
The study talks about declining levels of neutralising antibodies and then notes that this may result reduced vaccine efficacy although this may be offset by T-cell mediated immunity
You have a limited understanding of immunology (as do I, to be honest) and you have misread a study to come out with doom laden prognostications.
You’re in good company - many immunologists who know vastly more than either of us would say the same.
I remember nodding wisely along to a conversation about why TLR9 activity was novel and unexpected and therefore worthy of a new patent
Look, I posted the study, if you disagree with the study that is fine but there are clearly concerns around immunity waning and a reduction in immunity will result in a lot more people in hospital.
Let's hope the T-cells help to workaround such a problem but I will continue to raise concerns rather than just "everything is fine"
The study talks about declining levels of neutralising antibodies and then notes that this may result reduced vaccine efficacy although this may be offset by T-cell mediated immunity
You have a limited understanding of immunology (as do I, to be honest) and you have misread a study to come out with doom laden prognostications.
Just as much uncertainty in you sitting on here and shouting "everything is fine". I have not misunderstood anything - I reposted what the study said.
I’m not saying everything is fine.
The only position I have taken is that, on balance, there is insufficient evidence to justify significant restrictions at this stage.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
It does NOT say that
Yes it does
It says declining NAbs *may* result in a reduction in immunity *if* it is not offset by T-cell mediated immunity.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
I broadly agree with the idea, but last year a US expert put a much higher figure* proportionally on doing the same thing for schools in the US. And he also concluded it wasn't really feasible as the supply simply didn't exist to do the job at that time. Look at the bottom of the article, New York City alone is distributing 100,000 HEPA purifiers. It is probably a good idea, and certainly better than many other measures that have been taken, but good air filtration fitted to schools will take quite a bit of time and almost certainly a lot more than £140 million.
* I don't remember exactly what it was but it was many billions of dollars to fit and supply all US classrooms.
I think we are being subjected to Lib Dem Maths in search of a headline.
A normal classroom is a little under 200 cubic metres, and has around 30 people in it for 6-7 hours a day. Can anyone come up with a public building enclosed space grade HEPA air purifier, and deliver, certify (PAT test etc), and fit it for £230?
If not, I'm inclined to call bullshit on this.
Yea, but like FFP3 masks for HCW, it is a lot cheaper than the alternatives. Both are fairly simple mitigation measures that don't inconvenience the public.
And yes you do need a password management tool as every one of your online passwords should be different but there are tools beyond LasPass. Bitwarden is free
Comments
Obviously that's no longer the case with the new variant.
Anyway, dinner for me
Anyway, we definitively junked divine right monarchy in the 17th Century.
In the old days (pre Britannia) they converted the RN's newest and best battleship (yes, the kind with thick armour and **** off guns) and sent it and its crew round the world with the young Princess Elizabeth. No need for an escort then ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m0y8jt9AFo
* I don't remember exactly what it was but it was many billions of dollars to fit and supply all US classrooms.
It’s a total waste of money but its small change compared to the hundreds of billions of lost trade that went down the toilet due to the lunacy that engulfed 52% on that infamous day !
The search party continues on its mission to find a benefit of Brexit !
*Model*
Output: food poisoning
I advise you not to eat the chicken.
If immunity wanes then we do another booster in the future when it does.
What's your problem with that? Why hyperventilation over something that won't be an issue for another six months or so at least by which time there'll be next gen vaccines to boost with probably anyway?
(*) Again, ISTR that flagships can be slightly less combat effective for the same reason.
Also “hospitalisation” isn’t the only issue. Length of stay in hospital. Link to hospitalisation and more severe outcomes is an issue. It is certainly a reasonable assumption that there is a link. And, under current protocols, hospitalisation is a problem in itself.
However some of the things proposed in response are so extreme that there should be a high burden of proof. Higher than we have anyway IMO.
So no, it hasn't been conclusively shown (and that's a big ask for anything in this current situation), but it does make sense for it to be the case. The *level* of the increase is a different matter.
A good chunk of the problem is that rather than trying to do proper investigative journalism a lot of questioning just seems to be basic route one stuff of "hammer the government for doing the wrong thing regardless and see what sticks" or "ask deliberately opposing question to show 'balance'".
Bugger
Thanks. That would be annoying, but it does make sense if that's the way omicron works.
Quite so, though I think in this case it was to visit the Empire -- so the local bwanas etc would find the 14" ordnance reassuring. There's a good new book on the Vanguard which goes into some detail on the conversion, I seem to recall. I forget the details, not being obsessed with the minutiae of royalty, but they had to do a lot more than just telling HRH to doss down in the admiral's stateroom. B 14" turret was converted to a Royal Podium, for instance. All those civilian courtiers to house , the hacks too. Bet my dad was glad not to get detailed on that particular commission - one Coronation Review was enough for him.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-British-Battleship-Vanguard-1946-1960/dp/1526752263/ref=asc_df_1526752263/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=344389236467&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=13526249382954722617&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045177&hvtargid=pla-624034664597&psc=1&th=1&psc=1
To be followed by interviews with a member of SAGE saying the Government has over-reacted and there will be a mental health and obesity crisis caused by social isolation and enforced inactivity, followed by the Shadow Health Secretary saying we should follow the science and Javid should resign for not doing so. It's just how it is.
It is strangely silent on God’s role in the process.
The nine-point difference between a 12-point and three-point lead was worth about 60 seats that Tories would lose with Johnson but retain with Sunak, the polling suggested.
So there is your answer
Is there any evidence for this?
Cos, tbh I'm not picking it up outwith this board.
Shakespeare was notoriously lax about such things.
As I said only a Sunak leadership does better than Boris but at present he might lose the leadership vote amongst members
I think - and this is my 2022 prediction - Sunak will drop into net negative early on and his popularity will crater
Look how long it took them to get rid of May after a disasterous sequence of election results. Major wasn't ditched after 1995 even though the Tories were clearly headed for an electoral drubbing.
If Johnson goes ahead of GE24 it will be because he has decided he's had enough.
I assume you can see from where you quoted me the strike /strike tags so you know now?
Everyday's an education on here.
In retrospect, the whole Paterson thing may turn out to the best thing for the Tories if it shakes them out of the complacency that they can do what they want and still win. There is an argument for saying the lack of polling movement post-Cummings may have encouraged some hubris.
For all his faults, one thing that BJ's career shows is that he changes direction when he knows he's f**ked up. Personal view is that, in 2022, he will come back and the polling will reverse out again. That might be a rubbish prediction but nothing so far suggests Starmer is the new Blair.
And an explicit acknowledgement that T cell mediated immunity could offset the risk
You have a limited understanding of immunology (as do I, to be honest) and you have misread a study to come out with doom laden prognostications.
Fun.
https://youtu.be/L2f6Mi7I5lY
The impression I get is folk generally don't want restrictions, but fear they may be necessary. And for a lot it's priced in in January.
Not sure them not happening will be a cause of widespread rejoicing mind.
Plan B has had no impact whatsoever on any aspect of my life. Not sure it has even registered on most people's consciousness.
PS I'm in the US at the moment (LA to be precise) and any idea that the US is handling things better than the UK is a farce - it's a sh1t show over here at the moment and I don't think the many cancelled flights over Christmas are going to help things out.
A dear friend of mine can listen to any tune (at least, any I played her) and play it passably on the piano after one hearing. After a couple of listens and attempts she can be near note-perfect. Including a couple of rap 'tunes'.
BTW, am I the only PBer to have had their singing mentioned in a published book?
Now it is more like Labour pre 2010, only Sunak polls better than Boris as David Miliband only did better than Brown but neither led polls v Cameron or Starmer as no major policy difference from the incumbent. As 2010 proved David Miliband could not win the Labour electoral college anyway, as Sunak now trails on the latest Tory ConHome members survey
At last we have some polling with "alternative" Conservative leadership candidates.
There's an improvement with Sunak - the problem with Liz Truss is no one knows who she is (to be fair, no one really knew John Major in October 1990 even though he had been Foreign Secretary (albeit briefly) and Chancellor) so with some decent media exposure I would expect her numbers to improve.
From the outside, the scenario of Sunak replacing Johnson is analogous to Brown replacing Blair. Brown, it should be remembered, did enjoy a honeymoon period in the summer and early autumn of 2007 before Osborne's speech on IHT (arguably the most significant party conference speech of recent times) dented his prospects and between that and Northern Rock, Brown was always on the back foot from there.
The best scenario for Sunak is a coronation and a quick election. @HYUFD, who of course knows the Conservative Party far better than I, isn't so convinced he would win the membership vote which is interesting.
At present, the advantage in getting rid of Johnson just isn't there so they have to "keep buggering on". @MrEd may be right and Johnson will come bouncing back in 2022 - I do think there will be a significant Government relaunch sooner or later.
As we've seen, in lieu of mandated restrictions, people are taking their own risk assessments and some have decided to reduce social contact while others haven't. I'm to be convinced there's huge political capital for Johnson in not imposing restrictions and he'll get little thanks if he waits until next week before doing something.
Sometimes you're damned if you don't and you're damned if you do.
Think the pivot has well and truly begun...
Wes Streeting MP @wesstreeting
After a difficult 2021, people will be relieved to see no new restrictions ahead of the new year, but we need reassurance that this is the right decision being taken for the right reasons and that schools and the NHS will be able to cope.
@UKLabour’s response in full:
https://twitter.com/skepticalzebra/status/1475550497465581570?s=20
The replies to Streeting's tweet on the other hand....
The Danes still have a Royal Yacht which has been on the go since 1931.
Anyway, have a good evening.
The devolved administrations are responsible for the bulk of domestic policy and ought therefore also to control most of their own tax base and have significant, though not complete, discretion to borrow. This wouldn't mean the end of fiscal transfers, but it would make them a great deal less critical to the operation of devolution than the current system of funding by bloc grant and Barnett consequentials.
Then if Wales, for example, wanted a different and harsher regime of public health measures to that chosen by Westminster for England, it would have the ability to pay for the consequences of them itself.
Those who oppose restrictions are pissed off they're happening.
Those who want harder restrictions are pissed off they're not happening.
Those who reluctantly accept current restrictions because they're afraid aren't happy to be afraid.
So the electorate is grumpy. Deservedly so too.
If more restrictions aren't imposed and the problem passes then the electorate may be relieved and less grumpy.
Not a bloody question got so far.
NEW THREAD
Mr Johnson also had two water cannon to sell you, they were complete until Mayor Khan dismantled them, nonetheless if you have a use for them, I am sure we can deal ... maybe over drinks on the Royal Yacht Brexit.
1 - I have not seen Munira Wilson publish any numbers.
2 - The LDs suggest £140m for 600k classrooms in the UK (for 10.5m school students approx), or £230 per classroom.
3 - The Irish Taoiseach suggested that it would cost £75m to do Ireland, or £1500 per classroom.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40761129.html
4 - Though there were other voices suggesting £200 per classroom.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/7929852/covid-19-ireland-government-schools-collapse/
A normal classroom is a little under 200 cubic metres, and has around 30 people in it for 6-7 hours a day.
Can anyone come up with a public building enclosed space grade HEPA air purifier, and deliver, certify (PAT test etc), and fit it for £230?
If not, I'm inclined to call bullshit on this.
My vote next time around will be for whoever is most likely to resist lockdowns, even if that person has a view opposite mine on Europe or taxation. Although there will necessarily be a need to consider whether anyone is realistically placed to beat my pro-lockdown Labour MP (almost certainly not, leaving me free to vote for who I like).
We can't have one at the theatre so we'll have it here.
Did I just say that out loud?
My television watching for the next week however is going to be governed by the World's Strongest Man schedules.
The only position I have taken is that, on balance, there is insufficient evidence to justify significant restrictions at this stage.
Very different to what you claim it says
LastPass users getting alerted of random logins using CORRECT master passwords from foreign IPs
- Possibly credential stuffing from old LastPass breach
- Possibly Log4j fallout
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29705957
And yes you do need a password management tool as every one of your online passwords should be different but there are tools beyond LasPass. Bitwarden is free