Genuine question for anyone who knows Red Wall seats well. How do you think the news the government may allow greater immigration from India under trade negotiations with that country will be viewed in these constituencies? A welcome strengthening of our links with the Commonwealth, or not the Brexit they voted for?
A trade deal with India is worth having and Truss has already agreed some immigration with Australia
Sadly we still have an element in the party who hate immigration and they are wrong
Sensible immigration is good for everyone
Why? We don't export much to India and it is far poorer per head than we are so weakening immigration controls with them would see far more migration to the UK from India.
A deal with India would only be worth it if it greatly expanded our exports to India without compromising our points based migration system for Indian migrants
I thought that the idea was that Brexit would open trade deals across the world, which India is one, but also helps with our application to join the TPPA but if you are now twisting and turning on this deal, the question many will have is what is the point of leaving the EU in the first place
Many of us have wondered long and hard about that for many a year. It seems the Brexit coalition falls apart the moment any practical, important, real world choices need to be made. Hence black passports. And a crown on a glass no one noticed had ever gone.
Genuine question for anyone who knows Red Wall seats well. How do you think the news the government may allow greater immigration from India under trade negotiations with that country will be viewed in these constituencies? A welcome strengthening of our links with the Commonwealth, or not the Brexit they voted for?
A trade deal with India is worth having and Truss has already agreed some immigration with Australia
Sadly we still have an element in the party who hate immigration and they are wrong
Sensible immigration is good for everyone
Is it? What would we actually sell to them that we can’t already and at what cost to what section of our economy?
Let's wait the details but to reject any idea of some immigration from an Indian trade deal is hypocrisy when it has already happened with Australia
Just @HYUFD utter disdain for Truss on display here
Australia had a higher gdp per capita than we do and far fewer people than India. Totally different. Singapore equally has a higher gdp per capita so no problem there. However the redwall did not vote to replace free movement from Eastern Europe with free movement from India
You don't speak for the redwall. You voted Remain. You were more than willing to ignore their views and wishes when it suited you so you don't get to try and claim them to support your extremist position now.
You certainly don't speak for the Redwall. You used anti immigration rhetoric to get a majority for Leave from the working class in the redwall without which your side would have lost the referendum.
I always respected the Leave vote after the referendum result. I never used the working class for my own ends then tried to throw them and what they wanted under a bus like you and your fellow extreme libertarian Leavers
As some-one posted earlier today, I think, the Leave vote consisted of some people who thought the EU was too protectionist, and some people who thought the EU was too globalist. Together they formed a Leave majority. But you can't satisfy both camps.
"Something is definitely up. As you say the most logical is its Omicron and so have gone Wuhan+++ lockdown."
+++++
A lockdown which might not work against Mighty Omicron, despite being maybe the tightest quarantine in human history. It bears some thinking about: 13 million people are right now locked down, stuck indoors, and only one person is allowed out, once, every three days, to collect food
That is fucking horrible, those poor people
Xi'an is also, AIUI, a major centre of chip manufacture. This will have a global impact if it continues, and God knows what will happen if it spreads to the rest of China
Meanwhile, what will Beijing do if lockdown DOESN'T work against Omicron? Where do they go then? Just let it sweep the country?!
Extreme lockdowns will work, because it is far from impossible to push R down to below 1 (at massive cost). Ultimately, you can only leave the house once a week to get food. You wear an N95 mask whenever you are out the house. You do not go into the shop, you dial in your order and you pick it up outside.
People in essential jobs - as much as possible - wear HazMat suits.
In that way you *can* get R down below 1. But the problem is that it might take you months to drive cases down to negligible levels. And then when you open up, unless you've got them to zero, you're going to see them spike up again.
(And yes, X'ian has two absolutely massive semiconductor fabrication plants.)
The last time I looked, the reports were the workers at those factories where given very special exemptions as "key workers". If they shut those down, then you definitely know they have big problemo.
"Authorities are sealing people's windows to ensure the airborne covid can't escape from people's apartments."
IF they do seal up the windows with tape to make it airtight, will the oxygen not eventually run out and the people inside die? or am I missing something?
Well in Wuhan they welded doors shut and errhhhh well erhhhh.....now they are just chaining them shut instead.
No, they are back to welding them shut again. IF this video is real (Chinese media are, ironically, claiming there is a lot of Fake News on social media, to blacken China's name! How awful!)
So: caveat emptor
"Chinese officials welding the doors of buildings shut again as thousands of health officials are arriving and Xi'an city locks down amid community transmission of Hemorrhagic Fever. 2022 is going to be wild"
"Something is definitely up. As you say the most logical is its Omicron and so have gone Wuhan+++ lockdown."
+++++
A lockdown which might not work against Mighty Omicron, despite being maybe the tightest quarantine in human history. It bears some thinking about: 13 million people are right now locked down, stuck indoors, and only one person is allowed out, once, every three days, to collect food
That is fucking horrible, those poor people
Xi'an is also, AIUI, a major centre of chip manufacture. This will have a global impact if it continues, and God knows what will happen if it spreads to the rest of China
Meanwhile, what will Beijing do if lockdown DOESN'T work against Omicron? Where do they go then? Just let it sweep the country?!
Extreme lockdowns will work, because it is far from impossible to push R down to below 1 (at massive cost). Ultimately, you can only leave the house once a week to get food. You wear an N95 mask whenever you are out the house. You do not go into the shop, you dial in your order and you pick it up outside.
People in essential jobs - as much as possible - wear HazMat suits.
In that way you *can* get R down below 1. But the problem is that it might take you months to drive cases down to negligible levels. And then when you open up, unless you've got them to zero, you're going to see them spike up again.
(And yes, X'ian has two absolutely massive semiconductor fabrication plants.)
The last time I looked, the reports were the workers at those factories where given very special exemptions as "key workers". If they shut those down, then you definitely know they have big problemo.
"Authorities are sealing people's windows to ensure the airborne covid can't escape from people's apartments."
I find it staggering that a country as technologically advanced as China now is could have produced such ineffectual vaccines, if that really is true. What was the process behind that ?
Because mRNA vaccines are extremely new and very tricky to scale. And then they rushed their vaccine because they wanted to deploy soft power, same as Russia.
But AstraZeneca, and some others, aren't mRNA, no ?
None of the Chinese vaccines are mRNA. They are either inactivated virus or protein sub-unit vaccines, AIUI.
Edit. Convidecia is a viral vector vaccine like AZ and J&J
Genuine question for anyone who knows Red Wall seats well. How do you think the news the government may allow greater immigration from India under trade negotiations with that country will be viewed in these constituencies? A welcome strengthening of our links with the Commonwealth, or not the Brexit they voted for?
A trade deal with India is worth having and Truss has already agreed some immigration with Australia
Sadly we still have an element in the party who hate immigration and they are wrong
Sensible immigration is good for everyone
Is it? What would we actually sell to them that we can’t already and at what cost to what section of our economy?
Let's wait the details but to reject any idea of some immigration from an Indian trade deal is hypocrisy when it has already happened with Australia
Just @HYUFD utter disdain for Truss on display here
Australia had a higher gdp per capita than we do and far fewer people than India. Totally different. Singapore equally has a higher gdp per capita so no problem there. However the redwall did not vote to replace free movement from Eastern Europe with free movement from India
You don't speak for the redwall. You voted Remain. You were more than willing to ignore their views and wishes when it suited you so you don't get to try and claim them to support your extremist position now.
You certainly don't speak for the Redwall. You used anti immigration rhetoric to get a majority for Leave from the working class in the redwall without which your side would have lost the referendum.
I always respected the Leave vote after the referendum result. I never used the working class for my own ends then tried to throw them and what they wanted under a bus like you and your fellow extreme libertarian Leavers
As some-one posted earlier today, I think, the Leave vote consisted of some people who thought the EU was too protectionist, and some people who thought the EU was too globalist. Together they formed a Leave majority. But you can't satisfy both camps.
There was a sizable chunk for whom life has been shit, so all the talk of well we will be x% worse of if we leave, looked and around and went how much shitter can it get, what have I got to lose. All the talk of loss of ability to study via Erasmus or fancy cheese being exported or ability to buy a nice villa in Spain and live there many months of the year, that didn't apply to them, so as a scare tactic totally ineffective.
Genuine question for anyone who knows Red Wall seats well. How do you think the news the government may allow greater immigration from India under trade negotiations with that country will be viewed in these constituencies? A welcome strengthening of our links with the Commonwealth, or not the Brexit they voted for?
A trade deal with India is worth having and Truss has already agreed some immigration with Australia
Sadly we still have an element in the party who hate immigration and they are wrong
Sensible immigration is good for everyone
Is it? What would we actually sell to them that we can’t already and at what cost to what section of our economy?
Let's wait the details but to reject any idea of some immigration from an Indian trade deal is hypocrisy when it has already happened with Australia
Just @HYUFD utter disdain for Truss on display here
Australia had a higher gdp per capita than we do and far fewer people than India. Totally different. Singapore equally has a higher gdp per capita so no problem there. However the redwall did not vote to replace free movement from Eastern Europe with free movement from India
You don't speak for the redwall. You voted Remain. You were more than willing to ignore their views and wishes when it suited you so you don't get to try and claim them to support your extremist position now.
You certainly don't speak for the Redwall. You used anti immigration rhetoric to get a majority for Leave from the working class in the redwall without which your side would have lost the referendum.
I always respected the Leave vote after the referendum result. I never used the working class for my own ends then tried to throw them and what they wanted under a bus like you and your fellow extreme libertarian Leavers
As some-one posted earlier today, I think, the Leave vote consisted of some people who thought the EU was too protectionist, and some people who thought the EU was too globalist. Together they formed a Leave majority. But you can't satisfy both camps.
That's how Oppositions tend to work.
A bit like how pre-2010 the Lib Dems appealed to the left by saying vote for them to vote against the Tories, and the right by saying vote for them to vote against Labour.
The problem with the Lib Dems in office is they then satisfied neither group. They told the left they're willing to get into bed with the Tories losing left-leaning seats to Labour, but then tried to distance themselves from the Tories and so people in right-leaning seats went to the Tories. Had they stuck to one side they may have kept half their seats, but they didn't so they were basically wiped out.
The Government can't be an Opposition. Its not possible to keep the two sides on board together, the Government needs to take a stance and stand by it then be held to account for its actions.
"Xi'an, what are you doing?!" An outpouring of anger and disbelief on Weibo this sleepless night as residents from a covid affected community, including seniors and small kids, were suddenly relocated to a bleak quarantine location without any supplies."
Genuine question for anyone who knows Red Wall seats well. How do you think the news the government may allow greater immigration from India under trade negotiations with that country will be viewed in these constituencies? A welcome strengthening of our links with the Commonwealth, or not the Brexit they voted for?
A trade deal with India is worth having and Truss has already agreed some immigration with Australia
Sadly we still have an element in the party who hate immigration and they are wrong
Sensible immigration is good for everyone
Is it? What would we actually sell to them that we can’t already and at what cost to what section of our economy?
Let's wait the details but to reject any idea of some immigration from an Indian trade deal is hypocrisy when it has already happened with Australia
Just @HYUFD utter disdain for Truss on display here
Australia had a higher gdp per capita than we do and far fewer people than India. Totally different. Singapore equally has a higher gdp per capita so no problem there. However the redwall did not vote to replace free movement from Eastern Europe with free movement from India
You don't speak for the redwall. You voted Remain. You were more than willing to ignore their views and wishes when it suited you so you don't get to try and claim them to support your extremist position now.
You certainly don't speak for the Redwall. You used anti immigration rhetoric to get a majority for Leave from the working class in the redwall without which your side would have lost the referendum.
I always respected the Leave vote after the referendum result. I never used the working class for my own ends then tried to throw them and what they wanted under a bus like you and your fellow extreme libertarian Leavers
As some-one posted earlier today, I think, the Leave vote consisted of some people who thought the EU was too protectionist, and some people who thought the EU was too globalist. Together they formed a Leave majority. But you can't satisfy both camps.
The latter was the majority of the Leave vote however
He's meant to be pro-lockdown, so that's a good sign
And of course he is right. All the models said that if we wanted to impose even a halfway effective lockdown we had to do it by December 31st at the latest
It's Jan 1, 2022. It is now too late. We must endure
What are the odds that having said that in their prior models, the new models presented on 4 January say that we must lockdown now and its not too late. 🙄
They're so predictable.
And so are you. Whatever evidence is presented, your answer will always be that your personal freedom is more valuable than any number of lives.
Yes I will, its a point of principle for me. I'm not trying to twist the evidence to force it to suit my aims, I literally don't care what the "evidence" says.
Where do you draw the line.
Would you imprison a suspected killer without any evidence in order to save lives? Would you imprison an innocent person if it would save others lives?
I wouldn't. I regret accepting lockdown last year and I certainly can't accept it post-vaccines.
Then you are an extremist. As bad - if not worse - than the 'lockdown zealots' you decry. Different sides of the same Roman toilet sponge.
I know you don't see it that way, but your entire view on this is extremist. For instance your (*) view that no-one ever had any life under lockdown.
(*) Under your previous iteration
That's ridiculous, there's no both sides to this. This is like people trying to say there's two sides to the climate change discussion. There aren't.
COVID is now a personal risk, it's up to individuals to get vaccinated and reduce their risk of hospitalisation and death. Our freedoms cannot be curtailed to prevent the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. There's no argument you can make on "deaths" wrt lockdowns. There's a possible one on healthcare capacity in the short term but not on deaths. We've all had the chance to be vaccinated and to get boosters. You may be ok to lockdown to protect stupid people from their poor decisions, that's your personal choice, trying to impose that on the rest of us is ridiculous.
Ultimately, we don't lockdown or curtail freedoms to protect people from dying of the flu and for a triple jabbed person this is not even as deadly as the flu.
It isn't ridiculous. Lockdowns are a tool in the toolbox to deal with Covid. Blankly saying they should not be used under any circumstances is the ridiculous comment - and not one I believe you've made.
And the point you're missing is that it isn't just the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. It's all of us. Heaven forfend, if you have a heart attack whilst out with your mates at the pub, or I'd got hit by a lorry whilst running earlier, we'd hope for excellent treatment in hospital. We won't get those things if the hospital system collapses.
I'm not calling for a lockdown. I am saying that lockdowns should remain in our arsenal for dealing with it. Hopefully they will not be required.
If you have a heart attack then the NHS should triage and prioritise that. Putting investment into the NHS or having proper triage is an acceptable way to run the system, locking down the innocent in order to protect antivaxxers from the consequences of their choices is not.
You really don't live in the real world.
The NHS has previously rationed or triaged pretty harshly. Doing it for COVID would not be anything new. You need to let go of the idea that we can eliminate or halt COVID or prevent anyone from dying of it. We can minimise the risks with vaccines and hopefully anti-virals pretty soon. Beyond that if people refuse vaccines the consequence of that is a high risk of death. Let them live with their stupid decisions.
The issue is capacity management
Let’s say that you have 5 spare icu beds. Over the following week there are 5 unvaxxed covid patients who need them. Do you leave them empty?
If not and then a cardiac patient comes in needing one do you kick a covid patient out?
I’m not sure it is feasible (or ethical) to do either of those
The only point triage is possible is if there is one empty bed with simultaneous demand from unvaxxed covid vs another allowing you to make a choice
You do it with QALYs, push up the value of COVID healthcare provision for unvaccinated COVID patients. It would push the balance of something like that to not bothering for older vaccine refusers which would keep resources available for non-COVID care.
That becomes an ethical issue.
You are saying “I have spare capacity but I am not going to treat you. You may die as a result”
I will let @Foxy comment, but I suspect most doctors would struggle with that
A fair percentage of the unvaxxed are mentally ill, others just fearful of anything during pregnancy, others regret their choice immediately. It is not ethical to refuse them treatment. Decisions made for treatment are based on algorithms of who will most likely survive and make a good recovery.
Agreed - I’ve not seen any data that suggests unvaccinated have poorer treatment prognosis (although I haven’t looked). Have you?
No, though it wouldn't surprise me if being unvaxxed also emerged as an adverse prognostic factor. After all they do have less in the way of protective immunity.
We can't restrict healthcare for the unvaxxed - cannot put doctors in that position.
But we must hit them everywhere else; freedoms, taxes, bureaucracy. I won't abide by restrictions unless we do.
Parliament won't vote for measures Draconian enough to bring the refusers to heel, and more tokenistic measures (vaxports, differential tax rates) are insufficient incentive and/or administratively impractical.
Besides, it is now too late. Omicron is going to scythe through many or most of the remaining unvaccinated before we have the chance to talk them round.
From where we are now, we either get an infection tsunami without more restrictions or an infection tsunami with more restrictions. The cases are inevitable.
"Xi'an, what are you doing?!" An outpouring of anger and disbelief on Weibo this sleepless night as residents from a covid affected community, including seniors and small kids, were suddenly relocated to a bleak quarantine location without any supplies."
Omicron is the CCP's worst nightmare. Something they cannot control.
Yes. The CCP looks serenely secure and masterly, controlling Covid with an iron fist, blah blah
But all police states look totally secure, until they suddenly don't, and then they can fall quite quickly
That said I am unconvinced this will topple Xi. The Chinese have gotten rich quick and very many will still be grateful....
They do have a number of other things going on e.g. the collapse of giant real estate companies, which is the only avenue most Chinese people have to invest their money.
I am sure they are very concerned a number of stars might align.
He's meant to be pro-lockdown, so that's a good sign
And of course he is right. All the models said that if we wanted to impose even a halfway effective lockdown we had to do it by December 31st at the latest
It's Jan 1, 2022. It is now too late. We must endure
What are the odds that having said that in their prior models, the new models presented on 4 January say that we must lockdown now and its not too late. 🙄
They're so predictable.
And so are you. Whatever evidence is presented, your answer will always be that your personal freedom is more valuable than any number of lives.
Yes I will, its a point of principle for me. I'm not trying to twist the evidence to force it to suit my aims, I literally don't care what the "evidence" says.
Where do you draw the line.
Would you imprison a suspected killer without any evidence in order to save lives? Would you imprison an innocent person if it would save others lives?
I wouldn't. I regret accepting lockdown last year and I certainly can't accept it post-vaccines.
Then you are an extremist. As bad - if not worse - than the 'lockdown zealots' you decry. Different sides of the same Roman toilet sponge.
I know you don't see it that way, but your entire view on this is extremist. For instance your (*) view that no-one ever had any life under lockdown.
(*) Under your previous iteration
That's ridiculous, there's no both sides to this. This is like people trying to say there's two sides to the climate change discussion. There aren't.
COVID is now a personal risk, it's up to individuals to get vaccinated and reduce their risk of hospitalisation and death. Our freedoms cannot be curtailed to prevent the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. There's no argument you can make on "deaths" wrt lockdowns. There's a possible one on healthcare capacity in the short term but not on deaths. We've all had the chance to be vaccinated and to get boosters. You may be ok to lockdown to protect stupid people from their poor decisions, that's your personal choice, trying to impose that on the rest of us is ridiculous.
Ultimately, we don't lockdown or curtail freedoms to protect people from dying of the flu and for a triple jabbed person this is not even as deadly as the flu.
It isn't ridiculous. Lockdowns are a tool in the toolbox to deal with Covid. Blankly saying they should not be used under any circumstances is the ridiculous comment - and not one I believe you've made.
And the point you're missing is that it isn't just the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. It's all of us. Heaven forfend, if you have a heart attack whilst out with your mates at the pub, or I'd got hit by a lorry whilst running earlier, we'd hope for excellent treatment in hospital. We won't get those things if the hospital system collapses.
I'm not calling for a lockdown. I am saying that lockdowns should remain in our arsenal for dealing with it. Hopefully they will not be required.
If you have a heart attack then the NHS should triage and prioritise that. Putting investment into the NHS or having proper triage is an acceptable way to run the system, locking down the innocent in order to protect antivaxxers from the consequences of their choices is not.
You really don't live in the real world.
The NHS has previously rationed or triaged pretty harshly. Doing it for COVID would not be anything new. You need to let go of the idea that we can eliminate or halt COVID or prevent anyone from dying of it. We can minimise the risks with vaccines and hopefully anti-virals pretty soon. Beyond that if people refuse vaccines the consequence of that is a high risk of death. Let them live with their stupid decisions.
The issue is capacity management
Let’s say that you have 5 spare icu beds. Over the following week there are 5 unvaxxed covid patients who need them. Do you leave them empty?
If not and then a cardiac patient comes in needing one do you kick a covid patient out?
I’m not sure it is feasible (or ethical) to do either of those
The only point triage is possible is if there is one empty bed with simultaneous demand from unvaxxed covid vs another allowing you to make a choice
You do it with QALYs, push up the value of COVID healthcare provision for unvaccinated COVID patients. It would push the balance of something like that to not bothering for older vaccine refusers which would keep resources available for non-COVID care.
That becomes an ethical issue.
You are saying “I have spare capacity but I am not going to treat you. You may die as a result”
I will let @Foxy comment, but I suspect most doctors would struggle with that
Hard to square with the Hippocratic Oath.
Yes but it's not really up to doctors is it? It's up to the people who pay them. Also hard to be impressed with a profession which hasn't moved beyond an ill informed prehistoric wazzock like Hippocrates when it comes to ethical thinking. This was a guy, one of whose saner theories was that the womb used to come adrift from its moorings and wander off round the body but could be tempted back to its proper location by burning incense just by the vagina.
Genuine question for anyone who knows Red Wall seats well. How do you think the news the government may allow greater immigration from India under trade negotiations with that country will be viewed in these constituencies? A welcome strengthening of our links with the Commonwealth, or not the Brexit they voted for?
A trade deal with India is worth having and Truss has already agreed some immigration with Australia
Sadly we still have an element in the party who hate immigration and they are wrong
Sensible immigration is good for everyone
Why? We don't export much to India and it is far poorer per head than we are so weakening immigration controls with them would see far more migration to the UK from India.
A deal with India would only be worth it if it greatly expanded our exports to India without compromising our points based migration system for Indian migrants
I thought that the idea was that Brexit would open trade deals across the world, which India is one, but also helps with our application to join the TPPA but if you are now twisting and turning on this deal, the question many will have is what is the point of leaving the EU in the first place
Most people voted to leave the EU to regain sovereignty and end free movement, not for trade deals with India leading to free movement from India
Nobody, literally nobody, is proposing free movement from India.
Easier while still controlled movement is an entirely different matter and quite reasonable - and its exactly what Vote Leave including especially Patel were advocating for in the Referendum.
Where, anywhere did the Leave campaign promise easier movement of migrants to the UK?
In its campaigning in areas like East London, where the message was that restricting the number of East Europeans who could come here would make it easier for Asian Brits’ families to come here.
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
"Xi'an, what are you doing?!" An outpouring of anger and disbelief on Weibo this sleepless night as residents from a covid affected community, including seniors and small kids, were suddenly relocated to a bleak quarantine location without any supplies."
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
Any other ideas?
Social care plans which hammer the bluewall would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory base.
HS2 was not what most redwall voters were desperate for either, more improvement of local public transport
"Xi'an, what are you doing?!" An outpouring of anger and disbelief on Weibo this sleepless night as residents from a covid affected community, including seniors and small kids, were suddenly relocated to a bleak quarantine location without any supplies."
No more restrictions for the vaccinated and no open border immigration are
Of course they are
Boris has been found out big time, and for one who is throwing polls at everyone quote me any positive from the mail on sunday
Even Ed Miliband and Neil Kinnock had bigger leads midterm than just 5%
That's correct.
It's nothing special for a Government to be five points down mid-term. The problem is more the trend and resurgence of support for the LDs. If that continued, it would be very bad for the Conservatives, but Red Wall alarm aside the poll doesn't suggest a removal of the PM is necessary, or likely.
Panic will be setting in on Tory MP WhatsApp tonight me thinks.
I expect they will be receiving many calls to remove Boris asap
I think MPs will wait a few weeks to see what happens with Omicron, especially now that Boris stood firm against restrictions that is going to defang many of his critics who now have him on their side on that issue.
If anything I think Starmer, Sturgeon and Drakeford are ensuring Boris's survival. Ignoring Davey, because he's generally ignored by everyone, Boris is now the most liberal leader of any of the parties by far. He's providing genuinely different leadership to Sturgeon etc
If he continues to resist further restrictions the question may soon be why pubs, events etc are under such draconian restrictions in Wales and Scotland but not in England.
I've bet on Smarkets Tory poll lead in January market thanks to this. I think Sturgeon etc are ensuring there's a much greater than 20% chance of a Tory poll lead and if the polls do turn back around (and Boris gets credit for not locking us down more) then that's going to keep Boris safe in place at least until the May elections.
"Something is definitely up. As you say the most logical is its Omicron and so have gone Wuhan+++ lockdown."
+++++
A lockdown which might not work against Mighty Omicron, despite being maybe the tightest quarantine in human history. It bears some thinking about: 13 million people are right now locked down, stuck indoors, and only one person is allowed out, once, every three days, to collect food
That is fucking horrible, those poor people
Xi'an is also, AIUI, a major centre of chip manufacture. This will have a global impact if it continues, and God knows what will happen if it spreads to the rest of China
Meanwhile, what will Beijing do if lockdown DOESN'T work against Omicron? Where do they go then? Just let it sweep the country?!
Extreme lockdowns will work, because it is far from impossible to push R down to below 1 (at massive cost). Ultimately, you can only leave the house once a week to get food. You wear an N95 mask whenever you are out the house. You do not go into the shop, you dial in your order and you pick it up outside.
People in essential jobs - as much as possible - wear HazMat suits.
In that way you *can* get R down below 1. But the problem is that it might take you months to drive cases down to negligible levels. And then when you open up, unless you've got them to zero, you're going to see them spike up again.
(And yes, X'ian has two absolutely massive semiconductor fabrication plants.)
The last time I looked, the reports were the workers at those factories where given very special exemptions as "key workers". If they shut those down, then you definitely know they have big problemo.
"Authorities are sealing people's windows to ensure the airborne covid can't escape from people's apartments."
IF they do seal up the windows with tape to make it airtight, will the oxygen not eventually run out and the people inside die? or am I missing something?
Well in Wuhan they welded doors shut and errhhhh well erhhhh.....now they are just chaining them shut instead.
No, they are back to welding them shut again. IF this video is real (Chinese media are, ironically, claiming there is a lot of Fake News on social media, to blacken China's name! How awful!)
So: caveat emptor
"Chinese officials welding the doors of buildings shut again as thousands of health officials are arriving and Xi'an city locks down amid community transmission of Hemorrhagic Fever. 2022 is going to be wild"
Genuine question for anyone who knows Red Wall seats well. How do you think the news the government may allow greater immigration from India under trade negotiations with that country will be viewed in these constituencies? A welcome strengthening of our links with the Commonwealth, or not the Brexit they voted for?
A trade deal with India is worth having and Truss has already agreed some immigration with Australia
Sadly we still have an element in the party who hate immigration and they are wrong
Sensible immigration is good for everyone
Why? We don't export much to India and it is far poorer per head than we are so weakening immigration controls with them would see far more migration to the UK from India.
A deal with India would only be worth it if it greatly expanded our exports to India without compromising our points based migration system for Indian migrants
I thought that the idea was that Brexit would open trade deals across the world, which India is one, but also helps with our application to join the TPPA but if you are now twisting and turning on this deal, the question many will have is what is the point of leaving the EU in the first place
Most people voted to leave the EU to regain sovereignty and end free movement, not for trade deals with India leading to free movement from India
Nobody, literally nobody, is proposing free movement from India.
Easier while still controlled movement is an entirely different matter and quite reasonable - and its exactly what Vote Leave including especially Patel were advocating for in the Referendum.
Where, anywhere did the Leave campaign promise easier movement of migrants to the UK?
Commenting, Priti Patel said: “Uncontrolled immigration from the EU has led to tougher controls on migrants from the rest of the world. This means that we cannot bring in the talents and the skills we need to support our economy while we remain tied into the EU. Curry houses are being hit particularly hard as they are finding it more difficult to bring in experienced chefs to cook great dishes and train the next generation of chefs. Our curry houses are becoming the victims of the EU’s uncontrolled immigration rules.” “By voting to leave the EU we can take back control of our immigration policies, save our curry houses and join the rest of the world.”
Regarding the current immigration system Priti Patel said: “Across the country when I visit Diaspora communities, I hear from numerous people of the struggles and problems they have encountered with the immigration system and rules they are subjected to. Temples and Gurdwaras have difficulties bringing priests in...
It's probably not what WWC voters voted Leave for, but it was part of the mosaic that added up to 52%. So who was fooling who?
That could all be done with the points system we now have, not open door immigration from India
Trouble is that some Leave voters very clearly heard "Brexit = fewer foreigners, especially from poor countries". Doesn't matter if they misheard, it is what they heard. Others very clearly heard "fewer Romanians, more Indians". Again, it doesn't matter if it wasn't really promised, or even if the promise was "we could choose to do all sorts of things once we have taken back control".
And unfortunately, the only advice I can give is "Don't try to win a vote by microtargeting contradictory promises at different voters. Because they will remember the promise you made to them, and they will be furious if they are the ones you let down, and no quibbling about technicalities will get you off the hook. (see Clegg 2010)."
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
Any other ideas?
Ditch bozza. Get NutNut out.
If it all goes down the pan rapidly for Johnson in the next couple of weeks I will claim full credit, having only this morning included his survival through the next 12 months in my 2022 predictions.
It would probably also be the time to get out of the stock market and into Bircoin on the same basis (though DYOR).
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
Any other ideas?
Social care plans which hammer the bluewall would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory base.
HS2 was not what most redwall voters were desperate for either, more improvement of local public transport
I said HS3 which I think was a plan to build high speed rail from Hull to Liverpool via cities of the North.
THREAD 1/10 I'm sorry to say it on New Year's Day, but I think there is a serious chance now that the UK government's omicron gamble is about to go tits up....
TL;DR: it's not very cheerful. About the best thing he says is that there's no point in new restrictions. The surge is now in the post. The next two weeks are gonna be rough
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
Any other ideas?
Drop the NI rise and I'll become an enthusiastic supporter again. 👍 But I'm not expecting that to happen.
I expect action will be taking on energy bills, probably at least abolishing VAT on domestic energy bills (which was itself lets not forget a proposal by Vote Leave which would now be very politically convenient).
"Something is definitely up. As you say the most logical is its Omicron and so have gone Wuhan+++ lockdown."
+++++
A lockdown which might not work against Mighty Omicron, despite being maybe the tightest quarantine in human history. It bears some thinking about: 13 million people are right now locked down, stuck indoors, and only one person is allowed out, once, every three days, to collect food
That is fucking horrible, those poor people
Xi'an is also, AIUI, a major centre of chip manufacture. This will have a global impact if it continues, and God knows what will happen if it spreads to the rest of China
Meanwhile, what will Beijing do if lockdown DOESN'T work against Omicron? Where do they go then? Just let it sweep the country?!
China's an odd one because its a country with a government powerful enough to enforce the most draconian restrictions - and a country with a government powerful enough to let it rip too.
If Omicron the Paper Tiger can't be contained via a tough lockdown then it won't surprise me if the Chinese go from one extreme to another and just let it rip rather than pratting around with restrictions to drag on the damage for months at a time.
The problem for China is that even at a rate of 1/50 being hospitalised rather than 1/20 for Delta that's still a disaster. Chinese population immunity levels are disastrously low. It's a paper tiger here because for 35m or so people the hospitalisation rate is ~1/400 for a further 13m it's ~1/200 and for the rest pretty low because of age stratification in our vaccination programme. In China Omicron is a huge threat with how well it spreads despite the lower severity.
Yes that's entirely true but my point was if there's one country that can allow the 'bodies to pile high' even with poor immunity and allow a brutal triage regime to be applied instead its China.
If they can purge this with zero Covid draconianism they might, but if they can't I wouldn't rule out "Plan B" being Triage instead of pratting around with restrictions that drag out the pain instead.
He's meant to be pro-lockdown, so that's a good sign
And of course he is right. All the models said that if we wanted to impose even a halfway effective lockdown we had to do it by December 31st at the latest
It's Jan 1, 2022. It is now too late. We must endure
What are the odds that having said that in their prior models, the new models presented on 4 January say that we must lockdown now and its not too late. 🙄
They're so predictable.
And so are you. Whatever evidence is presented, your answer will always be that your personal freedom is more valuable than any number of lives.
Yes I will, its a point of principle for me. I'm not trying to twist the evidence to force it to suit my aims, I literally don't care what the "evidence" says.
Where do you draw the line.
Would you imprison a suspected killer without any evidence in order to save lives? Would you imprison an innocent person if it would save others lives?
I wouldn't. I regret accepting lockdown last year and I certainly can't accept it post-vaccines.
Then you are an extremist. As bad - if not worse - than the 'lockdown zealots' you decry. Different sides of the same Roman toilet sponge.
I know you don't see it that way, but your entire view on this is extremist. For instance your (*) view that no-one ever had any life under lockdown.
(*) Under your previous iteration
That's ridiculous, there's no both sides to this. This is like people trying to say there's two sides to the climate change discussion. There aren't.
COVID is now a personal risk, it's up to individuals to get vaccinated and reduce their risk of hospitalisation and death. Our freedoms cannot be curtailed to prevent the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. There's no argument you can make on "deaths" wrt lockdowns. There's a possible one on healthcare capacity in the short term but not on deaths. We've all had the chance to be vaccinated and to get boosters. You may be ok to lockdown to protect stupid people from their poor decisions, that's your personal choice, trying to impose that on the rest of us is ridiculous.
Ultimately, we don't lockdown or curtail freedoms to protect people from dying of the flu and for a triple jabbed person this is not even as deadly as the flu.
It isn't ridiculous. Lockdowns are a tool in the toolbox to deal with Covid. Blankly saying they should not be used under any circumstances is the ridiculous comment - and not one I believe you've made.
And the point you're missing is that it isn't just the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. It's all of us. Heaven forfend, if you have a heart attack whilst out with your mates at the pub, or I'd got hit by a lorry whilst running earlier, we'd hope for excellent treatment in hospital. We won't get those things if the hospital system collapses.
I'm not calling for a lockdown. I am saying that lockdowns should remain in our arsenal for dealing with it. Hopefully they will not be required.
If you have a heart attack then the NHS should triage and prioritise that. Putting investment into the NHS or having proper triage is an acceptable way to run the system, locking down the innocent in order to protect antivaxxers from the consequences of their choices is not.
You really don't live in the real world.
The NHS has previously rationed or triaged pretty harshly. Doing it for COVID would not be anything new. You need to let go of the idea that we can eliminate or halt COVID or prevent anyone from dying of it. We can minimise the risks with vaccines and hopefully anti-virals pretty soon. Beyond that if people refuse vaccines the consequence of that is a high risk of death. Let them live with their stupid decisions.
The issue is capacity management
Let’s say that you have 5 spare icu beds. Over the following week there are 5 unvaxxed covid patients who need them. Do you leave them empty?
If not and then a cardiac patient comes in needing one do you kick a covid patient out?
I’m not sure it is feasible (or ethical) to do either of those
The only point triage is possible is if there is one empty bed with simultaneous demand from unvaxxed covid vs another allowing you to make a choice
You do it with QALYs, push up the value of COVID healthcare provision for unvaccinated COVID patients. It would push the balance of something like that to not bothering for older vaccine refusers which would keep resources available for non-COVID care.
That becomes an ethical issue.
You are saying “I have spare capacity but I am not going to treat you. You may die as a result”
I will let @Foxy comment, but I suspect most doctors would struggle with that
A fair percentage of the unvaxxed are mentally ill, others just fearful of anything during pregnancy, others regret their choice immediately. It is not ethical to refuse them treatment. Decisions made for treatment are based on algorithms of who will most likely survive and make a good recovery.
Agreed - I’ve not seen any data that suggests unvaccinated have poorer treatment prognosis (although I haven’t looked). Have you?
No, though it wouldn't surprise me if being unvaxxed also emerged as an adverse prognostic factor. After all they do have less in the way of protective immunity.
I thought US data was showing that in this wave (which in the US is still an omicron/delta mix) the unvaxxed were 4x more likely to get symptomatic COVID, but 10x more likely to require hospitalization and 10x more likely to die than the vaxxed.
Edit: and that the mechanism for the improved prognosis was the strength of the T-cell response across COVID strains.
He's meant to be pro-lockdown, so that's a good sign
And of course he is right. All the models said that if we wanted to impose even a halfway effective lockdown we had to do it by December 31st at the latest
It's Jan 1, 2022. It is now too late. We must endure
What are the odds that having said that in their prior models, the new models presented on 4 January say that we must lockdown now and its not too late. 🙄
They're so predictable.
And so are you. Whatever evidence is presented, your answer will always be that your personal freedom is more valuable than any number of lives.
Yes I will, its a point of principle for me. I'm not trying to twist the evidence to force it to suit my aims, I literally don't care what the "evidence" says.
Where do you draw the line.
Would you imprison a suspected killer without any evidence in order to save lives? Would you imprison an innocent person if it would save others lives?
I wouldn't. I regret accepting lockdown last year and I certainly can't accept it post-vaccines.
Then you are an extremist. As bad - if not worse - than the 'lockdown zealots' you decry. Different sides of the same Roman toilet sponge.
I know you don't see it that way, but your entire view on this is extremist. For instance your (*) view that no-one ever had any life under lockdown.
(*) Under your previous iteration
That's ridiculous, there's no both sides to this. This is like people trying to say there's two sides to the climate change discussion. There aren't.
COVID is now a personal risk, it's up to individuals to get vaccinated and reduce their risk of hospitalisation and death. Our freedoms cannot be curtailed to prevent the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. There's no argument you can make on "deaths" wrt lockdowns. There's a possible one on healthcare capacity in the short term but not on deaths. We've all had the chance to be vaccinated and to get boosters. You may be ok to lockdown to protect stupid people from their poor decisions, that's your personal choice, trying to impose that on the rest of us is ridiculous.
Ultimately, we don't lockdown or curtail freedoms to protect people from dying of the flu and for a triple jabbed person this is not even as deadly as the flu.
It isn't ridiculous. Lockdowns are a tool in the toolbox to deal with Covid. Blankly saying they should not be used under any circumstances is the ridiculous comment - and not one I believe you've made.
And the point you're missing is that it isn't just the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. It's all of us. Heaven forfend, if you have a heart attack whilst out with your mates at the pub, or I'd got hit by a lorry whilst running earlier, we'd hope for excellent treatment in hospital. We won't get those things if the hospital system collapses.
I'm not calling for a lockdown. I am saying that lockdowns should remain in our arsenal for dealing with it. Hopefully they will not be required.
If you have a heart attack then the NHS should triage and prioritise that. Putting investment into the NHS or having proper triage is an acceptable way to run the system, locking down the innocent in order to protect antivaxxers from the consequences of their choices is not.
You really don't live in the real world.
The NHS has previously rationed or triaged pretty harshly. Doing it for COVID would not be anything new. You need to let go of the idea that we can eliminate or halt COVID or prevent anyone from dying of it. We can minimise the risks with vaccines and hopefully anti-virals pretty soon. Beyond that if people refuse vaccines the consequence of that is a high risk of death. Let them live with their stupid decisions.
The issue is capacity management
Let’s say that you have 5 spare icu beds. Over the following week there are 5 unvaxxed covid patients who need them. Do you leave them empty?
If not and then a cardiac patient comes in needing one do you kick a covid patient out?
I’m not sure it is feasible (or ethical) to do either of those
The only point triage is possible is if there is one empty bed with simultaneous demand from unvaxxed covid vs another allowing you to make a choice
You do it with QALYs, push up the value of COVID healthcare provision for unvaccinated COVID patients. It would push the balance of something like that to not bothering for older vaccine refusers which would keep resources available for non-COVID care.
That becomes an ethical issue.
You are saying “I have spare capacity but I am not going to treat you. You may die as a result”
I will let @Foxy comment, but I suspect most doctors would struggle with that
Hard to square with the Hippocratic Oath.
That went out years ago here, but the ethics remain unchanged.
Though part of the reluctance to redeploy is limited sympathy, though primarily it is fatigue, poor supervision on previous redeployment and wanting to do their usual work, which often has massive and growing backlogs.
2 million surgical opportunities have gone wasted in the last 2 years.
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
Any other ideas?
Ditch bozza. Get NutNut out.
Possibly. I doubt it though this side of an election. We shall see. If May is a total and utter shellacking then maybe.
But I said what No 10 would do. Most of No 10 is Bozza's people - they are all out on their arse when Truss takes over.
Genuine question for anyone who knows Red Wall seats well. How do you think the news the government may allow greater immigration from India under trade negotiations with that country will be viewed in these constituencies? A welcome strengthening of our links with the Commonwealth, or not the Brexit they voted for?
Hence Patel as Home Secretary is opposing vehemently any such policy. Truss is pushing it and she would go down like a lead balloon in the redwall.
Patel is the ultimate example of ‘pull up the ladder, Jack!’ And I’m sure the Red Wall would not be happy.
But if they were to swing away from the Tories, as a result of this policy, then one would have to have a heart of stone. Etc.
Patel is in tune with the redwall and Tory membership on this not Truss. This would boost Patel's leadership chances
Is that all that matters now? Winning the next Prime Ministerial handicap stakes.
I imagine on top of the scandals, there are a hell of a lot of people who are pretty damn grumpy at the moment. Its winter, been told to get jabbed, been told to get boostered and yet everybody and their dog is getting COVID, which means everybody in their household isolating etc. Few people like the idea of being stuck in their house for 7-10 days.
He's meant to be pro-lockdown, so that's a good sign
And of course he is right. All the models said that if we wanted to impose even a halfway effective lockdown we had to do it by December 31st at the latest
It's Jan 1, 2022. It is now too late. We must endure
What are the odds that having said that in their prior models, the new models presented on 4 January say that we must lockdown now and its not too late. 🙄
They're so predictable.
And so are you. Whatever evidence is presented, your answer will always be that your personal freedom is more valuable than any number of lives.
Yes I will, its a point of principle for me. I'm not trying to twist the evidence to force it to suit my aims, I literally don't care what the "evidence" says.
Where do you draw the line.
Would you imprison a suspected killer without any evidence in order to save lives? Would you imprison an innocent person if it would save others lives?
I wouldn't. I regret accepting lockdown last year and I certainly can't accept it post-vaccines.
Then you are an extremist. As bad - if not worse - than the 'lockdown zealots' you decry. Different sides of the same Roman toilet sponge.
I know you don't see it that way, but your entire view on this is extremist. For instance your (*) view that no-one ever had any life under lockdown.
(*) Under your previous iteration
That's ridiculous, there's no both sides to this. This is like people trying to say there's two sides to the climate change discussion. There aren't.
COVID is now a personal risk, it's up to individuals to get vaccinated and reduce their risk of hospitalisation and death. Our freedoms cannot be curtailed to prevent the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. There's no argument you can make on "deaths" wrt lockdowns. There's a possible one on healthcare capacity in the short term but not on deaths. We've all had the chance to be vaccinated and to get boosters. You may be ok to lockdown to protect stupid people from their poor decisions, that's your personal choice, trying to impose that on the rest of us is ridiculous.
Ultimately, we don't lockdown or curtail freedoms to protect people from dying of the flu and for a triple jabbed person this is not even as deadly as the flu.
It isn't ridiculous. Lockdowns are a tool in the toolbox to deal with Covid. Blankly saying they should not be used under any circumstances is the ridiculous comment - and not one I believe you've made.
And the point you're missing is that it isn't just the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. It's all of us. Heaven forfend, if you have a heart attack whilst out with your mates at the pub, or I'd got hit by a lorry whilst running earlier, we'd hope for excellent treatment in hospital. We won't get those things if the hospital system collapses.
I'm not calling for a lockdown. I am saying that lockdowns should remain in our arsenal for dealing with it. Hopefully they will not be required.
If you have a heart attack then the NHS should triage and prioritise that. Putting investment into the NHS or having proper triage is an acceptable way to run the system, locking down the innocent in order to protect antivaxxers from the consequences of their choices is not.
You really don't live in the real world.
The NHS has previously rationed or triaged pretty harshly. Doing it for COVID would not be anything new. You need to let go of the idea that we can eliminate or halt COVID or prevent anyone from dying of it. We can minimise the risks with vaccines and hopefully anti-virals pretty soon. Beyond that if people refuse vaccines the consequence of that is a high risk of death. Let them live with their stupid decisions.
The issue is capacity management
Let’s say that you have 5 spare icu beds. Over the following week there are 5 unvaxxed covid patients who need them. Do you leave them empty?
If not and then a cardiac patient comes in needing one do you kick a covid patient out?
I’m not sure it is feasible (or ethical) to do either of those
The only point triage is possible is if there is one empty bed with simultaneous demand from unvaxxed covid vs another allowing you to make a choice
You do it with QALYs, push up the value of COVID healthcare provision for unvaccinated COVID patients. It would push the balance of something like that to not bothering for older vaccine refusers which would keep resources available for non-COVID care.
That becomes an ethical issue.
You are saying “I have spare capacity but I am not going to treat you. You may die as a result”
I will let @Foxy comment, but I suspect most doctors would struggle with that
A fair percentage of the unvaxxed are mentally ill, others just fearful of anything during pregnancy, others regret their choice immediately. It is not ethical to refuse them treatment. Decisions made for treatment are based on algorithms of who will most likely survive and make a good recovery.
Agreed - I’ve not seen any data that suggests unvaccinated have poorer treatment prognosis (although I haven’t looked). Have you?
No, though it wouldn't surprise me if being unvaxxed also emerged as an adverse prognostic factor. After all they do have less in the way of protective immunity.
I thought US data was showing that in this wave (which is the US is still an omicron/delta mix) the unvaxxed were 4x more likely to get symptomatic COVID, but 10x more likely to require hospitalization and 10x more likely to die than the vexed.
Yes, that is all true.
What I am mooting is that of two hypothetically equally sick patients with similar risk factors the unvaxxed one may also do worse.
He's meant to be pro-lockdown, so that's a good sign
And of course he is right. All the models said that if we wanted to impose even a halfway effective lockdown we had to do it by December 31st at the latest
It's Jan 1, 2022. It is now too late. We must endure
What are the odds that having said that in their prior models, the new models presented on 4 January say that we must lockdown now and its not too late. 🙄
They're so predictable.
And so are you. Whatever evidence is presented, your answer will always be that your personal freedom is more valuable than any number of lives.
Yes I will, its a point of principle for me. I'm not trying to twist the evidence to force it to suit my aims, I literally don't care what the "evidence" says.
Where do you draw the line.
Would you imprison a suspected killer without any evidence in order to save lives? Would you imprison an innocent person if it would save others lives?
I wouldn't. I regret accepting lockdown last year and I certainly can't accept it post-vaccines.
Then you are an extremist. As bad - if not worse - than the 'lockdown zealots' you decry. Different sides of the same Roman toilet sponge.
I know you don't see it that way, but your entire view on this is extremist. For instance your (*) view that no-one ever had any life under lockdown.
(*) Under your previous iteration
That's ridiculous, there's no both sides to this. This is like people trying to say there's two sides to the climate change discussion. There aren't.
COVID is now a personal risk, it's up to individuals to get vaccinated and reduce their risk of hospitalisation and death. Our freedoms cannot be curtailed to prevent the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. There's no argument you can make on "deaths" wrt lockdowns. There's a possible one on healthcare capacity in the short term but not on deaths. We've all had the chance to be vaccinated and to get boosters. You may be ok to lockdown to protect stupid people from their poor decisions, that's your personal choice, trying to impose that on the rest of us is ridiculous.
Ultimately, we don't lockdown or curtail freedoms to protect people from dying of the flu and for a triple jabbed person this is not even as deadly as the flu.
It isn't ridiculous. Lockdowns are a tool in the toolbox to deal with Covid. Blankly saying they should not be used under any circumstances is the ridiculous comment - and not one I believe you've made.
And the point you're missing is that it isn't just the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. It's all of us. Heaven forfend, if you have a heart attack whilst out with your mates at the pub, or I'd got hit by a lorry whilst running earlier, we'd hope for excellent treatment in hospital. We won't get those things if the hospital system collapses.
I'm not calling for a lockdown. I am saying that lockdowns should remain in our arsenal for dealing with it. Hopefully they will not be required.
If you have a heart attack then the NHS should triage and prioritise that. Putting investment into the NHS or having proper triage is an acceptable way to run the system, locking down the innocent in order to protect antivaxxers from the consequences of their choices is not.
You really don't live in the real world.
The NHS has previously rationed or triaged pretty harshly. Doing it for COVID would not be anything new. You need to let go of the idea that we can eliminate or halt COVID or prevent anyone from dying of it. We can minimise the risks with vaccines and hopefully anti-virals pretty soon. Beyond that if people refuse vaccines the consequence of that is a high risk of death. Let them live with their stupid decisions.
The issue is capacity management
Let’s say that you have 5 spare icu beds. Over the following week there are 5 unvaxxed covid patients who need them. Do you leave them empty?
If not and then a cardiac patient comes in needing one do you kick a covid patient out?
I’m not sure it is feasible (or ethical) to do either of those
The only point triage is possible is if there is one empty bed with simultaneous demand from unvaxxed covid vs another allowing you to make a choice
You do it with QALYs, push up the value of COVID healthcare provision for unvaccinated COVID patients. It would push the balance of something like that to not bothering for older vaccine refusers which would keep resources available for non-COVID care.
That becomes an ethical issue.
You are saying “I have spare capacity but I am not going to treat you. You may die as a result”
I will let @Foxy comment, but I suspect most doctors would struggle with that
A fair percentage of the unvaxxed are mentally ill, others just fearful of anything during pregnancy, others regret their choice immediately. It is not ethical to refuse them treatment. Decisions made for treatment are based on algorithms of who will most likely survive and make a good recovery.
Agreed - I’ve not seen any data that suggests unvaccinated have poorer treatment prognosis (although I haven’t looked). Have you?
No, though it wouldn't surprise me if being unvaxxed also emerged as an adverse prognostic factor. After all they do have less in the way of protective immunity.
Be challenging to hit statistical significance though in a real world study given the number of confounding factors
the only advice I can give is "Don't try to win a vote by microtargeting contradictory promises at different voters. Because they will remember the promise you made to them, and they will be furious if they are the ones you let down, and no quibbling about technicalities will get you off the hook. (see Clegg 2010)."
Except the Brexiteers only needed to lie to the public "get lucky" once
The real tragedy is they didn't intend to actually win the vote.
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
Any other ideas?
I would guess some sort of focussed levelling up initiative is on the cards.
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
"Xi'an, what are you doing?!" An outpouring of anger and disbelief on Weibo this sleepless night as residents from a covid affected community, including seniors and small kids, were suddenly relocated to a bleak quarantine location without any supplies."
Omicron is the CCP's worst nightmare. Something they cannot control.
Yes. The CCP looks serenely secure and masterly, controlling Covid with an iron fist, blah blah
But all police states look totally secure, until they suddenly don't, and then they can fall quite quickly
That said I am unconvinced this will topple Xi. The Chinese have gotten rich quick and very many will still be grateful....
They do have a number of other things going on e.g. the collapse of giant real estate companies, which is the only avenue most Chinese people have to invest their money.
I am sure they are very concerned a number of stars might align.
It would be fecking ironic with knobs if the virus they almost certainly leaked by mistake from their own Frankenstein labs ends up ending the CCP.
He's meant to be pro-lockdown, so that's a good sign
And of course he is right. All the models said that if we wanted to impose even a halfway effective lockdown we had to do it by December 31st at the latest
It's Jan 1, 2022. It is now too late. We must endure
What are the odds that having said that in their prior models, the new models presented on 4 January say that we must lockdown now and its not too late. 🙄
They're so predictable.
And so are you. Whatever evidence is presented, your answer will always be that your personal freedom is more valuable than any number of lives.
Yes I will, its a point of principle for me. I'm not trying to twist the evidence to force it to suit my aims, I literally don't care what the "evidence" says.
Where do you draw the line.
Would you imprison a suspected killer without any evidence in order to save lives? Would you imprison an innocent person if it would save others lives?
I wouldn't. I regret accepting lockdown last year and I certainly can't accept it post-vaccines.
Then you are an extremist. As bad - if not worse - than the 'lockdown zealots' you decry. Different sides of the same Roman toilet sponge.
I know you don't see it that way, but your entire view on this is extremist. For instance your (*) view that no-one ever had any life under lockdown.
(*) Under your previous iteration
That's ridiculous, there's no both sides to this. This is like people trying to say there's two sides to the climate change discussion. There aren't.
COVID is now a personal risk, it's up to individuals to get vaccinated and reduce their risk of hospitalisation and death. Our freedoms cannot be curtailed to prevent the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. There's no argument you can make on "deaths" wrt lockdowns. There's a possible one on healthcare capacity in the short term but not on deaths. We've all had the chance to be vaccinated and to get boosters. You may be ok to lockdown to protect stupid people from their poor decisions, that's your personal choice, trying to impose that on the rest of us is ridiculous.
Ultimately, we don't lockdown or curtail freedoms to protect people from dying of the flu and for a triple jabbed person this is not even as deadly as the flu.
It isn't ridiculous. Lockdowns are a tool in the toolbox to deal with Covid. Blankly saying they should not be used under any circumstances is the ridiculous comment - and not one I believe you've made.
And the point you're missing is that it isn't just the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. It's all of us. Heaven forfend, if you have a heart attack whilst out with your mates at the pub, or I'd got hit by a lorry whilst running earlier, we'd hope for excellent treatment in hospital. We won't get those things if the hospital system collapses.
I'm not calling for a lockdown. I am saying that lockdowns should remain in our arsenal for dealing with it. Hopefully they will not be required.
If you have a heart attack then the NHS should triage and prioritise that. Putting investment into the NHS or having proper triage is an acceptable way to run the system, locking down the innocent in order to protect antivaxxers from the consequences of their choices is not.
You really don't live in the real world.
The NHS has previously rationed or triaged pretty harshly. Doing it for COVID would not be anything new. You need to let go of the idea that we can eliminate or halt COVID or prevent anyone from dying of it. We can minimise the risks with vaccines and hopefully anti-virals pretty soon. Beyond that if people refuse vaccines the consequence of that is a high risk of death. Let them live with their stupid decisions.
The issue is capacity management
Let’s say that you have 5 spare icu beds. Over the following week there are 5 unvaxxed covid patients who need them. Do you leave them empty?
If not and then a cardiac patient comes in needing one do you kick a covid patient out?
I’m not sure it is feasible (or ethical) to do either of those
The only point triage is possible is if there is one empty bed with simultaneous demand from unvaxxed covid vs another allowing you to make a choice
You do it with QALYs, push up the value of COVID healthcare provision for unvaccinated COVID patients. It would push the balance of something like that to not bothering for older vaccine refusers which would keep resources available for non-COVID care.
That becomes an ethical issue.
You are saying “I have spare capacity but I am not going to treat you. You may die as a result”
I will let @Foxy comment, but I suspect most doctors would struggle with that
Hard to square with the Hippocratic Oath.
Yes but it's not really up to doctors is it? It's up to the people who pay them. Also hard to be impressed with a profession which hasn't moved beyond an ill informed prehistoric wazzock like Hippocrates when it comes to ethical thinking. This was a guy, one of whose saner theories was that the womb used to come adrift from its moorings and wander off round the body but could be tempted back to its proper location by burning incense just by the vagina.
To be fair that was probably just his excuse for getting up close and personal
He's meant to be pro-lockdown, so that's a good sign
And of course he is right. All the models said that if we wanted to impose even a halfway effective lockdown we had to do it by December 31st at the latest
It's Jan 1, 2022. It is now too late. We must endure
What are the odds that having said that in their prior models, the new models presented on 4 January say that we must lockdown now and its not too late. 🙄
They're so predictable.
And so are you. Whatever evidence is presented, your answer will always be that your personal freedom is more valuable than any number of lives.
Yes I will, its a point of principle for me. I'm not trying to twist the evidence to force it to suit my aims, I literally don't care what the "evidence" says.
Where do you draw the line.
Would you imprison a suspected killer without any evidence in order to save lives? Would you imprison an innocent person if it would save others lives?
I wouldn't. I regret accepting lockdown last year and I certainly can't accept it post-vaccines.
Then you are an extremist. As bad - if not worse - than the 'lockdown zealots' you decry. Different sides of the same Roman toilet sponge.
I know you don't see it that way, but your entire view on this is extremist. For instance your (*) view that no-one ever had any life under lockdown.
(*) Under your previous iteration
That's ridiculous, there's no both sides to this. This is like people trying to say there's two sides to the climate change discussion. There aren't.
COVID is now a personal risk, it's up to individuals to get vaccinated and reduce their risk of hospitalisation and death. Our freedoms cannot be curtailed to prevent the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. There's no argument you can make on "deaths" wrt lockdowns. There's a possible one on healthcare capacity in the short term but not on deaths. We've all had the chance to be vaccinated and to get boosters. You may be ok to lockdown to protect stupid people from their poor decisions, that's your personal choice, trying to impose that on the rest of us is ridiculous.
Ultimately, we don't lockdown or curtail freedoms to protect people from dying of the flu and for a triple jabbed person this is not even as deadly as the flu.
It isn't ridiculous. Lockdowns are a tool in the toolbox to deal with Covid. Blankly saying they should not be used under any circumstances is the ridiculous comment - and not one I believe you've made.
And the point you're missing is that it isn't just the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. It's all of us. Heaven forfend, if you have a heart attack whilst out with your mates at the pub, or I'd got hit by a lorry whilst running earlier, we'd hope for excellent treatment in hospital. We won't get those things if the hospital system collapses.
I'm not calling for a lockdown. I am saying that lockdowns should remain in our arsenal for dealing with it. Hopefully they will not be required.
If you have a heart attack then the NHS should triage and prioritise that. Putting investment into the NHS or having proper triage is an acceptable way to run the system, locking down the innocent in order to protect antivaxxers from the consequences of their choices is not.
You really don't live in the real world.
The NHS has previously rationed or triaged pretty harshly. Doing it for COVID would not be anything new. You need to let go of the idea that we can eliminate or halt COVID or prevent anyone from dying of it. We can minimise the risks with vaccines and hopefully anti-virals pretty soon. Beyond that if people refuse vaccines the consequence of that is a high risk of death. Let them live with their stupid decisions.
The issue is capacity management
Let’s say that you have 5 spare icu beds. Over the following week there are 5 unvaxxed covid patients who need them. Do you leave them empty?
If not and then a cardiac patient comes in needing one do you kick a covid patient out?
I’m not sure it is feasible (or ethical) to do either of those
The only point triage is possible is if there is one empty bed with simultaneous demand from unvaxxed covid vs another allowing you to make a choice
You do it with QALYs, push up the value of COVID healthcare provision for unvaccinated COVID patients. It would push the balance of something like that to not bothering for older vaccine refusers which would keep resources available for non-COVID care.
That becomes an ethical issue.
You are saying “I have spare capacity but I am not going to treat you. You may die as a result”
I will let @Foxy comment, but I suspect most doctors would struggle with that
A fair percentage of the unvaxxed are mentally ill, others just fearful of anything during pregnancy, others regret their choice immediately. It is not ethical to refuse them treatment. Decisions made for treatment are based on algorithms of who will most likely survive and make a good recovery.
Agreed - I’ve not seen any data that suggests unvaccinated have poorer treatment prognosis (although I haven’t looked). Have you?
No, though it wouldn't surprise me if being unvaxxed also emerged as an adverse prognostic factor. After all they do have less in the way of protective immunity.
I thought US data was showing that in this wave (which is the US is still an omicron/delta mix) the unvaxxed were 4x more likely to get symptomatic COVID, but 10x more likely to require hospitalization and 10x more likely to die than the vexed.
Yes, that is all true.
What I am mooting is that of two hypothetically equally sick patients with similar risk factors the unvaxxed one may also do worse.
Working purely from basic principles, I am not sure you can say that. If they are equally sick once the adaptive immune system has kicked in, their vaccine status is already baked in.
THREAD 1/10 I'm sorry to say it on New Year's Day, but I think there is a serious chance now that the UK government's omicron gamble is about to go tits up....
TL;DR: it's not very cheerful. About the best thing he says is that there's no point in new restrictions. The surge is now in the post. The next two weeks are gonna be rough
Even those figures show the boosters vastly reduce chances of hospitalisation
Paul Nuki @PaulNuki THREAD 1/10 I'm sorry to say it on New Year's Day, but I think there is a serious chance now that the UK government's omicron gamble is about to go tits up....
No more restrictions for the vaccinated and no open border immigration are
Of course they are
Boris has been found out big time, and for one who is throwing polls at everyone quote me any positive from the mail on sunday
Even Ed Miliband and Neil Kinnock had bigger leads midterm than just 5%
I genuinely feel sorry for you and your inability to see that which is staring you in the face
As opposed to your desire for open door immigration from India like Truss which really would put the Tories over 10% behind
I did not say open door, you did, and controlled immigration from Australia has already been agreed and Patel has supported controlled immigration from India previously
And by the way the conservatives are 16% behind in the red wall and looking at analiation
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
Any other ideas?
Social care plans which hammer the bluewall would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory base.
HS2 was not what most redwall voters were desperate for either, more improvement of local public transport
I said HS3 which I think was a plan to build high speed rail from Hull to Liverpool via cities of the North.
There is still not a single Tory MP in Hull or Liverpool or indeed most Northern cities.
"sickness" or isolation? The two are not the same thing.
I'm currently isolating because I have what could best be described as "manflu" in any normal year. I would never have taken 7 or 10 days off work in the past for this. Indeed given my current symptoms I'd have taken 48 hours off based on symptoms instead of a line on a test.
the only advice I can give is "Don't try to win a vote by microtargeting contradictory promises at different voters. Because they will remember the promise you made to them, and they will be furious if they are the ones you let down, and no quibbling about technicalities will get you off the hook. (see Clegg 2010)."
Except the Brexiteers only needed to lie to the public "get lucky" once
The real tragedy is they didn't intend to actually win the vote.
Stop whining. You live in a democracy. You are free to campaign for a Rejoin referendum, and then win it
That's what eurosceptics did, and it took them 40 years because idiot europhiles kept promising a vote, then taking it away, which, in the end, is why you lost. That's the irony, or the tragedy - whichever you prefer
I imagine on top of the scandals, there are a hell of a lot of people who are pretty damn grumpy at the moment. Its winter, been told to get jabbed, been told to get boostered and yet everybody and their dog is getting COVID, which means everybody in their household isolating etc. Few people like the idea of being stuck in their house for 7-10 days.
Yes. And what people heard for the past year was our world beating vaccine programme was an end to COVID. Yet every bugger and their aunt has had it in the past 3 weeks, or has it now, or will have it in January. That has not passed unnoticed.
No more restrictions for the vaccinated and no open border immigration are
Of course they are
Boris has been found out big time, and for one who is throwing polls at everyone quote me any positive from the mail on sunday
Even Ed Miliband and Neil Kinnock had bigger leads midterm than just 5%
I genuinely feel sorry for you and your inability to see that which is staring you in the face
As opposed to your desire for open door immigration from India like Truss which really would put the Tories over 10% behind
I did not say open door, you did, and controlled immigration from Australia has already been agreed and Patel has supported controlled immigration from India previously
And by the way the conservatives are 16% behind in the red wall and looking at analiation
No, they are 5% behind overall.
The Tories could still lose the redwall and even win a small majority as Cameron did in 2015
the only advice I can give is "Don't try to win a vote by microtargeting contradictory promises at different voters. Because they will remember the promise you made to them, and they will be furious if they are the ones you let down, and no quibbling about technicalities will get you off the hook. (see Clegg 2010)."
Except the Brexiteers only needed to lie to the public "get lucky" once
The real tragedy is they didn't intend to actually win the vote.
That was a bit careless of them, wasn't it? And whilst BoJo clearly didn't intend to win, plenty of those below him have been true believers all along.
It's a bit odd though; despite the awful warning of what happened to Clegg, the monster campaigning brains in VL decided to go for an online version of the sort of campaign that Focus Teams were doing in the 1970's and In Touch Teams in the 1980's. Tell us your personal grumble and we'll promise to sort it...
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
Any other ideas?
I would guess some sort of focussed levelling up initiative is on the cards.
Once they work out what it means perhaps. However. They are in the hands of Brittania Unchained Cabinet ministers and the ERG. Who won't pay for anything.
I imagine on top of the scandals, there are a hell of a lot of people who are pretty damn grumpy at the moment. Its winter, been told to get jabbed, been told to get boostered and yet everybody and their dog is getting COVID, which means everybody in their household isolating etc. Few people like the idea of being stuck in their house for 7-10 days.
Yes. And what people heard for the past year was our world beating vaccine programme was an end to COVID. Yet every bugger and their aunt has had it in the past 3 weeks, or has it now, or will have it in January. That has not passed unnoticed.
How many have had it and been seriously ill ending in hospital or death?
And how many have had it as a cough, cold or manflu? That we have every winter in normal circumstances anyway?
The vaccine making the virus another common cold is the vaccine working and time to abolish all restrictions that don't apply to any other common cold virus.
No more restrictions for the vaccinated and no open border immigration are
Of course they are
Boris has been found out big time, and for one who is throwing polls at everyone quote me any positive from the mail on sunday
Even Ed Miliband and Neil Kinnock had bigger leads midterm than just 5%
I genuinely feel sorry for you and your inability to see that which is staring you in the face
As opposed to your desire for open door immigration from India like Truss which really would put the Tories over 10% behind
I did not say open door, you did, and controlled immigration from Australia has already been agreed and Patel has supported controlled immigration from India previously
And by the way the conservatives are 16% behind in the red wall and looking at analiation
No, they are 5% behind overall.
The Tories could still lose the redwall and even win a small majority as Cameron did in 2015
They would lose 100 seats on this poll and to try to contradict polling from you is bizarre
He's meant to be pro-lockdown, so that's a good sign
And of course he is right. All the models said that if we wanted to impose even a halfway effective lockdown we had to do it by December 31st at the latest
It's Jan 1, 2022. It is now too late. We must endure
What are the odds that having said that in their prior models, the new models presented on 4 January say that we must lockdown now and its not too late. 🙄
They're so predictable.
And so are you. Whatever evidence is presented, your answer will always be that your personal freedom is more valuable than any number of lives.
Yes I will, its a point of principle for me. I'm not trying to twist the evidence to force it to suit my aims, I literally don't care what the "evidence" says.
Where do you draw the line.
Would you imprison a suspected killer without any evidence in order to save lives? Would you imprison an innocent person if it would save others lives?
I wouldn't. I regret accepting lockdown last year and I certainly can't accept it post-vaccines.
Then you are an extremist. As bad - if not worse - than the 'lockdown zealots' you decry. Different sides of the same Roman toilet sponge.
I know you don't see it that way, but your entire view on this is extremist. For instance your (*) view that no-one ever had any life under lockdown.
(*) Under your previous iteration
That's ridiculous, there's no both sides to this. This is like people trying to say there's two sides to the climate change discussion. There aren't.
COVID is now a personal risk, it's up to individuals to get vaccinated and reduce their risk of hospitalisation and death. Our freedoms cannot be curtailed to prevent the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. There's no argument you can make on "deaths" wrt lockdowns. There's a possible one on healthcare capacity in the short term but not on deaths. We've all had the chance to be vaccinated and to get boosters. You may be ok to lockdown to protect stupid people from their poor decisions, that's your personal choice, trying to impose that on the rest of us is ridiculous.
Ultimately, we don't lockdown or curtail freedoms to protect people from dying of the flu and for a triple jabbed person this is not even as deadly as the flu.
It isn't ridiculous. Lockdowns are a tool in the toolbox to deal with Covid. Blankly saying they should not be used under any circumstances is the ridiculous comment - and not one I believe you've made.
And the point you're missing is that it isn't just the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. It's all of us. Heaven forfend, if you have a heart attack whilst out with your mates at the pub, or I'd got hit by a lorry whilst running earlier, we'd hope for excellent treatment in hospital. We won't get those things if the hospital system collapses.
I'm not calling for a lockdown. I am saying that lockdowns should remain in our arsenal for dealing with it. Hopefully they will not be required.
If you have a heart attack then the NHS should triage and prioritise that. Putting investment into the NHS or having proper triage is an acceptable way to run the system, locking down the innocent in order to protect antivaxxers from the consequences of their choices is not.
You really don't live in the real world.
The NHS has previously rationed or triaged pretty harshly. Doing it for COVID would not be anything new. You need to let go of the idea that we can eliminate or halt COVID or prevent anyone from dying of it. We can minimise the risks with vaccines and hopefully anti-virals pretty soon. Beyond that if people refuse vaccines the consequence of that is a high risk of death. Let them live with their stupid decisions.
The issue is capacity management
Let’s say that you have 5 spare icu beds. Over the following week there are 5 unvaxxed covid patients who need them. Do you leave them empty?
If not and then a cardiac patient comes in needing one do you kick a covid patient out?
I’m not sure it is feasible (or ethical) to do either of those
The only point triage is possible is if there is one empty bed with simultaneous demand from unvaxxed covid vs another allowing you to make a choice
You do it with QALYs, push up the value of COVID healthcare provision for unvaccinated COVID patients. It would push the balance of something like that to not bothering for older vaccine refusers which would keep resources available for non-COVID care.
That becomes an ethical issue.
You are saying “I have spare capacity but I am not going to treat you. You may die as a result”
I will let @Foxy comment, but I suspect most doctors would struggle with that
A fair percentage of the unvaxxed are mentally ill, others just fearful of anything during pregnancy, others regret their choice immediately. It is not ethical to refuse them treatment. Decisions made for treatment are based on algorithms of who will most likely survive and make a good recovery.
Agreed - I’ve not seen any data that suggests unvaccinated have poorer treatment prognosis (although I haven’t looked). Have you?
No, though it wouldn't surprise me if being unvaxxed also emerged as an adverse prognostic factor. After all they do have less in the way of protective immunity.
Be challenging to hit statistical significance though in a real world study given the number of confounding factors
Why "challenging"? In a "real world" study, as per the recent Scottish one, there is no dearth of degrees of freedom given the number of cases.
No more restrictions for the vaccinated and no open border immigration are
Of course they are
Boris has been found out big time, and for one who is throwing polls at everyone quote me any positive from the mail on sunday
Even Ed Miliband and Neil Kinnock had bigger leads midterm than just 5%
I genuinely feel sorry for you and your inability to see that which is staring you in the face
As opposed to your desire for open door immigration from India like Truss which really would put the Tories over 10% behind
I did not say open door, you did, and controlled immigration from Australia has already been agreed and Patel has supported controlled immigration from India previously
And by the way the conservatives are 16% behind in the red wall and looking at analiation
No, they are 5% behind overall.
The Tories could still lose the redwall and even win a small majority as Cameron did in 2015
They would lose 100 seats on this poll and to try to contradict polling from you is bizarre
Cameron and John Major were often further behind midterm than Boris is now, both were re elected in 2015 and 1992
I imagine on top of the scandals, there are a hell of a lot of people who are pretty damn grumpy at the moment. Its winter, been told to get jabbed, been told to get boostered and yet everybody and their dog is getting COVID, which means everybody in their household isolating etc. Few people like the idea of being stuck in their house for 7-10 days.
Yes. And what people heard for the past year was our world beating vaccine programme was an end to COVID. Yet every bugger and their aunt has had it in the past 3 weeks, or has it now, or will have it in January. That has not passed unnoticed.
But very, very few have died. Or even got unpleasantly ill.
Paul Nuki @PaulNuki THREAD 1/10 I'm sorry to say it on New Year's Day, but I think there is a serious chance now that the UK government's omicron gamble is about to go tits up....
"Something is definitely up. As you say the most logical is its Omicron and so have gone Wuhan+++ lockdown."
+++++
A lockdown which might not work against Mighty Omicron, despite being maybe the tightest quarantine in human history. It bears some thinking about: 13 million people are right now locked down, stuck indoors, and only one person is allowed out, once, every three days, to collect food
That is fucking horrible, those poor people
Xi'an is also, AIUI, a major centre of chip manufacture. This will have a global impact if it continues, and God knows what will happen if it spreads to the rest of China
Meanwhile, what will Beijing do if lockdown DOESN'T work against Omicron? Where do they go then? Just let it sweep the country?!
Extreme lockdowns will work, because it is far from impossible to push R down to below 1 (at massive cost). Ultimately, you can only leave the house once a week to get food. You wear an N95 mask whenever you are out the house. You do not go into the shop, you dial in your order and you pick it up outside.
People in essential jobs - as much as possible - wear HazMat suits.
In that way you *can* get R down below 1. But the problem is that it might take you months to drive cases down to negligible levels. And then when you open up, unless you've got them to zero, you're going to see them spike up again.
(And yes, X'ian has two absolutely massive semiconductor fabrication plants.)
The last time I looked, the reports were the workers at those factories where given very special exemptions as "key workers". If they shut those down, then you definitely know they have big problemo.
"Authorities are sealing people's windows to ensure the airborne covid can't escape from people's apartments."
The dystopian Wuhan-type videos are back, as well
"But there was also this video of a resident being beaten by anti-epidemic workers after he allegedly left his community to get steamed buns because he was so hungry. The two community workers have reportedly been detained by Xi'an police."
"It’s been 10 days since the lockdown, and I don't receive any relief of any sort (luckily we don't need one atm). There's nothing but anger, anxiety, despair, and fear from the original Weibo comment sections of all the videos in the thread - like a retrospective of Wuhan 2020."
"In light of Xi'an lockdown, some people in Shajing Village are really struggling. Endless lines for steamed buns, hungry people & those who've had nothing but noodles for 8 days straight: "When will we get food? Everyone in the house is hungry. We can only ask for help on Weibo.""
This is CHINESE social media reporting despair and fear. Hmm
2022 is off to a cracking start!
Could be existential for the state if it gathers momentum and spreads.
Yes. There is a huge, visceral and entirely understandable fear about famine in China. Fear of starvation was the reason for their insane, self-harming "one child" policy.
Millions of Chinese have died of hunger within living memory
If the people get the sense that the Party cannot feed them, then all bets are off, and Xi is in deep shit
Ultimately to answer that you would need to look in to rice and other types of food production. It seems like the lockdowns and various other covid related panics, such that we hear about, are confined to urban areas; the fates of the affected are closely tied up with the CCP.
I imagine on top of the scandals, there are a hell of a lot of people who are pretty damn grumpy at the moment. Its winter, been told to get jabbed, been told to get boostered and yet everybody and their dog is getting COVID, which means everybody in their household isolating etc. Few people like the idea of being stuck in their house for 7-10 days.
Yes. And what people heard for the past year was our world beating vaccine programme was an end to COVID. Yet every bugger and their aunt has had it in the past 3 weeks, or has it now, or will have it in January. That has not passed unnoticed.
How many have had it and been seriously ill ending in hospital or death?
And how many have had it as a cough, cold or manflu? That we have every winter in normal circumstances anyway?
The vaccine making the virus another common cold is the vaccine working and time to abolish all restrictions that don't apply to any other common cold virus.
"Cholera is nothing to worry about because for some folk it's just a morning after a vindaloo."
What will No 10 do in response the apparent cratering collapse in polling?
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
Any other ideas?
I would guess some sort of focussed levelling up initiative is on the cards.
iirg Gove's white paper on levelling up was kicked back into the long grass as it was vacuous long term waffle.
Paul Nuki @PaulNuki THREAD 1/10 I'm sorry to say it on New Year's Day, but I think there is a serious chance now that the UK government's omicron gamble is about to go tits up....
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 7m Replying to @andrew_lilico On 5-Dec there were 1,019 cases amongst the over-65s. Even on 22-Dec that had risen only to ~6,200 cases. On 29-Dec there were ~17,000 cases amongst the over-65s - presumably most of which which were from infections caught literally at Christmas.
He's meant to be pro-lockdown, so that's a good sign
And of course he is right. All the models said that if we wanted to impose even a halfway effective lockdown we had to do it by December 31st at the latest
It's Jan 1, 2022. It is now too late. We must endure
What are the odds that having said that in their prior models, the new models presented on 4 January say that we must lockdown now and its not too late. 🙄
They're so predictable.
And so are you. Whatever evidence is presented, your answer will always be that your personal freedom is more valuable than any number of lives.
Yes I will, its a point of principle for me. I'm not trying to twist the evidence to force it to suit my aims, I literally don't care what the "evidence" says.
Where do you draw the line.
Would you imprison a suspected killer without any evidence in order to save lives? Would you imprison an innocent person if it would save others lives?
I wouldn't. I regret accepting lockdown last year and I certainly can't accept it post-vaccines.
Then you are an extremist. As bad - if not worse - than the 'lockdown zealots' you decry. Different sides of the same Roman toilet sponge.
I know you don't see it that way, but your entire view on this is extremist. For instance your (*) view that no-one ever had any life under lockdown.
(*) Under your previous iteration
That's ridiculous, there's no both sides to this. This is like people trying to say there's two sides to the climate change discussion. There aren't.
COVID is now a personal risk, it's up to individuals to get vaccinated and reduce their risk of hospitalisation and death. Our freedoms cannot be curtailed to prevent the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. There's no argument you can make on "deaths" wrt lockdowns. There's a possible one on healthcare capacity in the short term but not on deaths. We've all had the chance to be vaccinated and to get boosters. You may be ok to lockdown to protect stupid people from their poor decisions, that's your personal choice, trying to impose that on the rest of us is ridiculous.
Ultimately, we don't lockdown or curtail freedoms to protect people from dying of the flu and for a triple jabbed person this is not even as deadly as the flu.
It isn't ridiculous. Lockdowns are a tool in the toolbox to deal with Covid. Blankly saying they should not be used under any circumstances is the ridiculous comment - and not one I believe you've made.
And the point you're missing is that it isn't just the deaths of those who chose not to get vaccinated. It's all of us. Heaven forfend, if you have a heart attack whilst out with your mates at the pub, or I'd got hit by a lorry whilst running earlier, we'd hope for excellent treatment in hospital. We won't get those things if the hospital system collapses.
I'm not calling for a lockdown. I am saying that lockdowns should remain in our arsenal for dealing with it. Hopefully they will not be required.
If you have a heart attack then the NHS should triage and prioritise that. Putting investment into the NHS or having proper triage is an acceptable way to run the system, locking down the innocent in order to protect antivaxxers from the consequences of their choices is not.
You really don't live in the real world.
The NHS has previously rationed or triaged pretty harshly. Doing it for COVID would not be anything new. You need to let go of the idea that we can eliminate or halt COVID or prevent anyone from dying of it. We can minimise the risks with vaccines and hopefully anti-virals pretty soon. Beyond that if people refuse vaccines the consequence of that is a high risk of death. Let them live with their stupid decisions.
The issue is capacity management
Let’s say that you have 5 spare icu beds. Over the following week there are 5 unvaxxed covid patients who need them. Do you leave them empty?
If not and then a cardiac patient comes in needing one do you kick a covid patient out?
I’m not sure it is feasible (or ethical) to do either of those
The only point triage is possible is if there is one empty bed with simultaneous demand from unvaxxed covid vs another allowing you to make a choice
You do it with QALYs, push up the value of COVID healthcare provision for unvaccinated COVID patients. It would push the balance of something like that to not bothering for older vaccine refusers which would keep resources available for non-COVID care.
That becomes an ethical issue.
You are saying “I have spare capacity but I am not going to treat you. You may die as a result”
I will let @Foxy comment, but I suspect most doctors would struggle with that
A fair percentage of the unvaxxed are mentally ill, others just fearful of anything during pregnancy, others regret their choice immediately. It is not ethical to refuse them treatment. Decisions made for treatment are based on algorithms of who will most likely survive and make a good recovery.
Agreed - I’ve not seen any data that suggests unvaccinated have poorer treatment prognosis (although I haven’t looked). Have you?
No, though it wouldn't surprise me if being unvaxxed also emerged as an adverse prognostic factor. After all they do have less in the way of protective immunity.
Be challenging to hit statistical significance though in a real world study given the number of confounding factors
Why "challenging"? In a "real world" study, as per the recent Scottish one, there is no dearth of degrees of freedom given the number of cases.
Real world studies are a nightmare in their own right. Then you need to control for genetics, background health and a whole bunch of other stuff to prove statistically that vaccine status is a driver of outcomes
I imagine on top of the scandals, there are a hell of a lot of people who are pretty damn grumpy at the moment. Its winter, been told to get jabbed, been told to get boostered and yet everybody and their dog is getting COVID, which means everybody in their household isolating etc. Few people like the idea of being stuck in their house for 7-10 days.
Yes. And what people heard for the past year was our world beating vaccine programme was an end to COVID. Yet every bugger and their aunt has had it in the past 3 weeks, or has it now, or will have it in January. That has not passed unnoticed.
How many have had it and been seriously ill ending in hospital or death?
And how many have had it as a cough, cold or manflu? That we have every winter in normal circumstances anyway?
The vaccine making the virus another common cold is the vaccine working and time to abolish all restrictions that don't apply to any other common cold virus.
"Cholera is nothing to worry about because for some folk it's just a morning after a vindaloo."
Cholera isn't something to lockdown modern society over, nor is the newly common cold.
What proportion of triple-vaccinated people getting Omicron are getting anything more severe than manflu?
It will be popular with the chatterati, until we run out of food...
I don't remember the Brexit advert that said "We will use British taxpayer money to pay British farmers not to grow food", and the headbangers are certainly not on board with it...
Comments
It seems the Brexit coalition falls apart the moment any practical, important, real world choices need to be made.
Hence black passports. And a crown on a glass no one noticed had ever gone.
It was bound to happen. I did not expect so soon.
But you can't satisfy both camps.
As it is, Starmer consolidates whlist the Conservatives are stuck for the time being with a loser.
So: caveat emptor
"Chinese officials welding the doors of buildings shut again as thousands of health officials are arriving and Xi'an city locks down amid community transmission of Hemorrhagic Fever.
2022 is going to be wild"
https://twitter.com/59dallas/status/1476561426940579849?s=20
No more restrictions for the vaccinated and no open border immigration are
"Do you support complusory vaccinations
Yes 57%
No 31% "
Edit. Convidecia is a viral vector vaccine like AZ and J&J
Hiding in a fridge, for example...
Brexit can be anything you want, until you actually want it to happen...
Boris has been found out big time, and for one who is throwing polls at everyone quote me any positive from the mail on sunday
A bit like how pre-2010 the Lib Dems appealed to the left by saying vote for them to vote against the Tories, and the right by saying vote for them to vote against Labour.
The problem with the Lib Dems in office is they then satisfied neither group. They told the left they're willing to get into bed with the Tories losing left-leaning seats to Labour, but then tried to distance themselves from the Tories and so people in right-leaning seats went to the Tories. Had they stuck to one side they may have kept half their seats, but they didn't so they were basically wiped out.
The Government can't be an Opposition. Its not possible to keep the two sides on board together, the Government needs to take a stance and stand by it then be held to account for its actions.
But all police states look totally secure, until they suddenly don't, and then they can fall quite quickly
That said I am unconvinced this will topple Xi. The Chinese have gotten rich quick and very many will still be grateful....
Besides, it is now too late. Omicron is going to scythe through many or most of the remaining unvaccinated before we have the chance to talk them round.
From where we are now, we either get an infection tsunami without more restrictions or an infection tsunami with more restrictions. The cases are inevitable.
I am sure they are very concerned a number of stars might align.
I expect the NI rise to be ditched within weeks. Social care plans abandoned, as they appear to favour southern home owners. Action on energy costs: maybe drop VAT for a year or two? Reshuffle to bring in a couple of Red Wall 2019 MPs into Cabinet. Northern Powerhouse rail or whatever HS3 was called to be back being built again.
Any other ideas?
HS2 was not what most redwall voters were desperate for either, more improvement of local public transport
Not really. It is that kids will wear masks all day again in schools.
Haven't 90% of them had covid?
It's nothing special for a Government to be five points down mid-term. The problem is more the trend and resurgence of support for the LDs. If that continued, it would be very bad for the Conservatives, but Red Wall alarm aside the poll doesn't suggest a removal of the PM is necessary, or likely.
If anything I think Starmer, Sturgeon and Drakeford are ensuring Boris's survival. Ignoring Davey, because he's generally ignored by everyone, Boris is now the most liberal leader of any of the parties by far. He's providing genuinely different leadership to Sturgeon etc
If he continues to resist further restrictions the question may soon be why pubs, events etc are under such draconian restrictions in Wales and Scotland but not in England.
I've bet on Smarkets Tory poll lead in January market thanks to this. I think Sturgeon etc are ensuring there's a much greater than 20% chance of a Tory poll lead and if the polls do turn back around (and Boris gets credit for not locking us down more) then that's going to keep Boris safe in place at least until the May elections.
And unfortunately, the only advice I can give is "Don't try to win a vote by microtargeting contradictory promises at different voters. Because they will remember the promise you made to them, and they will be furious if they are the ones you let down, and no quibbling about technicalities will get you off the hook. (see Clegg 2010)."
It would probably also be the time to get out of the stock market and into Bircoin on the same basis (though DYOR).
THREAD 1/10
I'm sorry to say it on New Year's Day, but I think there is a serious chance now that the UK government's omicron gamble is about to go tits up....
https://twitter.com/PaulNuki/status/1477358070305071108?s=20
TL;DR: it's not very cheerful. About the best thing he says is that there's no point in new restrictions. The surge is now in the post. The next two weeks are gonna be rough
I expect action will be taking on energy bills, probably at least abolishing VAT on domestic energy bills (which was itself lets not forget a proposal by Vote Leave which would now be very politically convenient).
Edit: and that the mechanism for the improved prognosis was the strength of the T-cell response across COVID strains.
Though part of the reluctance to redeploy is limited sympathy, though primarily it is fatigue, poor supervision on previous redeployment and wanting to do their usual work, which often has massive and growing backlogs.
2 million surgical opportunities have gone wasted in the last 2 years.
https://twitter.com/SurgeryTracker/status/1476612683831160839?t=ya8tbLnApDXrnhY5UGzXqg&s=19
But I said what No 10 would do. Most of No 10 is Bozza's people - they are all out on their arse when Truss takes over.
What I am mooting is that of two hypothetically equally sick patients with similar risk factors the unvaxxed one may also do worse.
lie to the public"get lucky" onceThe real tragedy is they didn't intend to actually win the vote.
Preferred team:
Johnson + Sunak 33
Starmer + Reeves 40
Preferred PM
Johnson 33
Starmer 38
Do you trust Boris to...
...level up?
Yes 25
No 67
...obey the rules?
Yes 25
No 68
...tell the truth?
Yes 22
No 74 https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1477395359890649091
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/01/uk-ministers-eager-to-ease-immigration-rules-for-indian-citizens
I thought you were a loyal Tory?
@PaulNuki
THREAD 1/10
I'm sorry to say it on New Year's Day, but I think there is a serious chance now that the UK government's omicron gamble is about to go tits up....
And by the way the conservatives are 16% behind in the red wall and looking at analiation
Most redwall MPs are in ex industrial towns
I'm currently isolating because I have what could best be described as "manflu" in any normal year. I would never have taken 7 or 10 days off work in the past for this. Indeed given my current symptoms I'd have taken 48 hours off based on symptoms instead of a line on a test.
That's what eurosceptics did, and it took them 40 years because idiot europhiles kept promising a vote, then taking it away, which, in the end, is why you lost. That's the irony, or the tragedy - whichever you prefer
Yet every bugger and their aunt has had it in the past 3 weeks, or has it now, or will have it in January.
That has not passed unnoticed.
That should boost his polling?
I am not joking. That's what they are calling them
"Hey son, I'm off to the Boris Ward!"
"Great Dad, can I have the car and your wine?"
The Tories could still lose the redwall and even win a small majority as Cameron did in 2015
It's a bit odd though; despite the awful warning of what happened to Clegg, the monster campaigning brains in VL decided to go for an online version of the sort of campaign that Focus Teams were doing in the 1970's and In Touch Teams in the 1980's. Tell us your personal grumble and we'll promise to sort it...
However. They are in the hands of Brittania Unchained Cabinet ministers and the ERG.
Who won't pay for anything.
And how many have had it as a cough, cold or manflu? That we have every winter in normal circumstances anyway?
The vaccine making the virus another common cold is the vaccine working and time to abolish all restrictions that don't apply to any other common cold virus.
The Telegraph. Like the Boris house bible.
NHS plans new Nightingale facilities in response to Omicron
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/12/nhs-plans-new-nightingale-facilities-in-response-to-omicron/
"I'm getting my Boris Box tomorrow! Funeral on Friday"
Are they on drugs?
Love the phrase "soft shell body storage solutions"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/01/farmers-get-funds-restore-natural-habitats-rewild-britain-new/
Oh, dear. I wonder who is going to tell the headbangers...
Let’s make 2022 the year to grow more of our own food and produce more of our goods. Government needs to use Brexit freedoms to make that easier and to buy British itself.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1477181474545799170
That has not passed unnoticed.
Except by the dumb fucks who won't get jabbed.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
7m
Replying to
@andrew_lilico
On 5-Dec there were 1,019 cases amongst the over-65s. Even on 22-Dec that had risen only to ~6,200 cases. On 29-Dec there were ~17,000 cases amongst the over-65s - presumably most of which which were from infections caught literally at Christmas.
What proportion of triple-vaccinated people getting Omicron are getting anything more severe than manflu?
I don't remember the Brexit advert that said "We will use British taxpayer money to pay British farmers not to grow food", and the headbangers are certainly not on board with it...