Actually, if you think about it, vaccines are of course driving viral evolution. It’s a classic genetic pressure. However, viruses are not ‘super-heroes’, they cannot explore an infinite variety of mutation, at least mot withou potential costs. So in order to overcome vaccine induced immunity, often a mutation will arise that allows this, but may have consequences elsewhere.
It’s also important to to mistake a new variant taking over for it somehow being more dangerous and virulent than any other variant. As a wave of one variant goes through it runs out of people to infect, and the next wave is driven by a new variant that has some abiliy to evade the existing community immunity.
Note, this does not mean evading the whole immune response - no variant has come close to that - rather it is the neutralising antibody response.
There is a lot of wibbling in places, notably the US, about XB1.5 (or whatever the exact designation is), but little scientific concern. It’s mostly the media, as ever, failing to understand science.
No that’s not true. There is genuine concern that XBB15 might be a sinister development. It has characteristics that suggest it might cause more Long Covid than prior variants. It attacks cells everywhere. It is insanely infectious
“A very important and informative thread about why the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant is now dominating in the Northeast US and is expected to spread. Please protect yourselves and others by wearing N95 masks. I am truly concerned about the #longCOVID wave that follows this infection.”
That’s one poster on twitter. I have taken the time to read around, and there is little concern about this. Even the exaggerated growth rate in the U.K. (up 4% in a week) is likely down to limited data, that was rpthen updated to be more like 0.1%).
Waving long covid about is the same as the idiots who think that every covid infection is like playing Russian Roulette with long covid. There is no evidence that that is the case.
There has been a recent study which suggests in some patients covid spreads quite widely through the body, and it’s possible that this may act as a reservoir for recurrent illness. However we don’t really have a definition of long covid, and it means different things to different people.
Lots of people have something or other right now. Perhaps it has been like that for the past 500 years but without the testing.
I would never have known I had Covid (nor even a mild cold or flu) over Christmas had I not tested.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Absolutism is stupid - both sides made mistakes as happens in every negotiation everywhere. But its clear which side came away satisfied and which side didn't.
We can wail and moan about the EU all we like. They had a pre-stated position and red lines. We said they would crumble, they didn't. We negotiated a deal which our own side now say they didn't understand and didn't expect the counterparty to implement.
Set aside the NIP for a second, this is a bigger issue. Both the EU and future counterparty negotiators know for a fact the UK team are ill-informed and stupid - as witnessed by our calamities with the TCP, NIP, AusNZ deal etc. We aren't trusted by the people we want to negotiate with (America) and treated like a joke by the ones who took advantage of us.
Actually, if you think about it, vaccines are of course driving viral evolution. It’s a classic genetic pressure. However, viruses are not ‘super-heroes’, they cannot explore an infinite variety of mutation, at least mot withou potential costs. So in order to overcome vaccine induced immunity, often a mutation will arise that allows this, but may have consequences elsewhere.
It’s also important to to mistake a new variant taking over for it somehow being more dangerous and virulent than any other variant. As a wave of one variant goes through it runs out of people to infect, and the next wave is driven by a new variant that has some abiliy to evade the existing community immunity.
Note, this does not mean evading the whole immune response - no variant has come close to that - rather it is the neutralising antibody response.
There is a lot of wibbling in places, notably the US, about XB1.5 (or whatever the exact designation is), but little scientific concern. It’s mostly the media, as ever, failing to understand science.
No that’s not true. There is genuine concern that XBB15 might be a sinister development. It has characteristics that suggest it might cause more Long Covid than prior variants. It attacks cells everywhere. It is insanely infectious
“A very important and informative thread about why the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant is now dominating in the Northeast US and is expected to spread. Please protect yourselves and others by wearing N95 masks. I am truly concerned about the #longCOVID wave that follows this infection.”
That’s one poster on twitter. I have taken the time to read around, and there is little concern about this. Even the exaggerated growth rate in the U.K. (up 4% in a week) is likely down to limited data, that was rpthen updated to be more like 0.1%).
Waving long covid about is the same as the idiots who think that every covid infection is like playing Russian Roulette with long covid. There is no evidence that that is the case.
There has been a recent study which suggests in some patients covid spreads quite widely through the body, and it’s possible that this may act as a reservoir for recurrent illness. However we don’t really have a definition of long covid, and it means different things to different people.
Er, she’s head of a lab at Yale School of Medicine which specifically studies Long Covid. The guy she’s quoting is a Harvard Phd and Peking Uni professor. They aren’t “randoms on Twitter”
And there are plenty of other scientists who disagree. That’s the nature of science.
Fine, you wibble all you want, but please try to balance the doom tweets with some more grounded stuff. Try @BristOliver@kallmemeg for starters.
You’re projecting
I’m not “wibbling”. I explicitly said this is NOT a reason to panic, but it IS a cause for concern. I’m right
Not entirely unexpected that a scientist who is head of a lab studying long covid thinks that a new development brings a higher risk of long covid.
The front page of the FT is a long wait about the UK’s sickly status. However, it is noticeable that none of the economists quoted has any suggestion of a remedy
I struggle to see what Labour will do, other than move much closer to the EU
Hmmm.
The problem was caused by Brexit.
I wonder if your favourite chatbot can suggest ANY remedy at all...
Nope - the problem is Brexit and the utterly insane methodology used by the Treasury when it comes to decision making.
Most of which can be traced back to one George Osbourne and his "Austerity".
The London centric metrics used by the Treasury date from before I was born. Heseltine used to rail against them.
Was that classic rail or HS?
He bought his own track, probably.
Unlike Proper Tories, who inherited 7 foot guage from Brunel….
Brunel was an immigrant's son. If they took 7 foot it would be from Daniel Gooch (MP for Cricklade but never actually spoke in the Commons, using it just because it had excellent dining facilities).
However, they would have been more likely to go with Robert Stephenson (Tory MP for Whitby) and the standard gauge. In fact, they did...
To be true pb.com you've got to weave Brexit into this somehow.
Come on, try harder.
How about: Brunel's father was French and if we had Brexited earlier it would have kept him out, the rotten foreigner. It would have of course meant we would have Brexited before we actually joined, but that is just a technicality.
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
Varadkar certainly isn't offering substantive changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol, and it isn't in his gift to do so. Joe Biden wants the Northern Ireland Protocol issue settled by the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement this Spring and is putting pressure on the parties - particularly the UK - to sort it out. Both sides say they want an agreement. There's a lot of Kabuki going on, possibly including this intervention by Varadkar and maybe any eventual half-hearted agreement between the EU and the UK on the Northern Ireland Protocol.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Absolutism is stupid - both sides made mistakes as happens in every negotiation everywhere. But its clear which side came away satisfied and which side didn't.
We can wail and moan about the EU all we like. They had a pre-stated position and red lines. We said they would crumble, they didn't. We negotiated a deal which our own side now say they didn't understand and didn't expect the counterparty to implement.
Set aside the NIP for a second, this is a bigger issue. Both the EU and future counterparty negotiators know for a fact the UK team are ill-informed and stupid - as witnessed by our calamities with the TCP, NIP, AusNZ deal etc. We aren't trusted by the people we want to negotiate with (America) and treated like a joke by the ones who took advantage of us.
There are precious few Remainers ( @williamglenn pre-transition, perhaps) who thought the EU was perfect. We all realised it was flawed in any number of ways. Just that actually leaving it would be a greater act of self-harm.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
The details had already been negotiated under May. Johnson’s contribution was just a tactical manoeuvre to break the impasse in parliament.
Don't tell Bart Roberts that (is he still around?) He always maintained that the current situation was a Boris masterstroke that liberated us from Theresa's calamitous 'backstop'.
Set aside the NIP for a second, this is a bigger issue. Both the EU and future counterparty negotiators know for a fact the UK team are ill-informed and stupid - as witnessed by our calamities with the TCP, NIP, AusNZ deal etc. We aren't trusted by the people we want to negotiate with (America) and treated like a joke by the ones who took advantage of us.
As I said last night, our diplomacy is another thing that has been trashed by Brexit.
The only Country in history to impose sanctions on itself.
Actually, if you think about it, vaccines are of course driving viral evolution. It’s a classic genetic pressure. However, viruses are not ‘super-heroes’, they cannot explore an infinite variety of mutation, at least mot withou potential costs. So in order to overcome vaccine induced immunity, often a mutation will arise that allows this, but may have consequences elsewhere.
It’s also important to to mistake a new variant taking over for it somehow being more dangerous and virulent than any other variant. As a wave of one variant goes through it runs out of people to infect, and the next wave is driven by a new variant that has some abiliy to evade the existing community immunity.
Note, this does not mean evading the whole immune response - no variant has come close to that - rather it is the neutralising antibody response.
There is a lot of wibbling in places, notably the US, about XB1.5 (or whatever the exact designation is), but little scientific concern. It’s mostly the media, as ever, failing to understand science.
No that’s not true. There is genuine concern that XBB15 might be a sinister development. It has characteristics that suggest it might cause more Long Covid than prior variants. It attacks cells everywhere. It is insanely infectious
“A very important and informative thread about why the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant is now dominating in the Northeast US and is expected to spread. Please protect yourselves and others by wearing N95 masks. I am truly concerned about the #longCOVID wave that follows this infection.”
That’s one poster on twitter. I have taken the time to read around, and there is little concern about this. Even the exaggerated growth rate in the U.K. (up 4% in a week) is likely down to limited data, that was rpthen updated to be more like 0.1%).
Waving long covid about is the same as the idiots who think that every covid infection is like playing Russian Roulette with long covid. There is no evidence that that is the case.
There has been a recent study which suggests in some patients covid spreads quite widely through the body, and it’s possible that this may act as a reservoir for recurrent illness. However we don’t really have a definition of long covid, and it means different things to different people.
Er, she’s head of a lab at Yale School of Medicine which specifically studies Long Covid. The guy she’s quoting is a Harvard Phd and Peking Uni professor. They aren’t “randoms on Twitter”
And there are plenty of other scientists who disagree. That’s the nature of science.
Fine, you wibble all you want, but please try to balance the doom tweets with some more grounded stuff. Try @BristOliver@kallmemeg for starters.
You’re projecting
I’m not “wibbling”. I explicitly said this is NOT a reason to panic, but it IS a cause for concern. I’m right
Not entirely unexpected that a scientist who is head of a lab studying long covid thinks that a new development brings a higher risk of long covid.
Besides those studying or treating long covid, who would have an expert opinion on long covid?
Actually, if you think about it, vaccines are of course driving viral evolution. It’s a classic genetic pressure. However, viruses are not ‘super-heroes’, they cannot explore an infinite variety of mutation, at least mot withou potential costs. So in order to overcome vaccine induced immunity, often a mutation will arise that allows this, but may have consequences elsewhere.
It’s also important to to mistake a new variant taking over for it somehow being more dangerous and virulent than any other variant. As a wave of one variant goes through it runs out of people to infect, and the next wave is driven by a new variant that has some abiliy to evade the existing community immunity.
Note, this does not mean evading the whole immune response - no variant has come close to that - rather it is the neutralising antibody response.
There is a lot of wibbling in places, notably the US, about XB1.5 (or whatever the exact designation is), but little scientific concern. It’s mostly the media, as ever, failing to understand science.
No that’s not true. There is genuine concern that XBB15 might be a sinister development. It has characteristics that suggest it might cause more Long Covid than prior variants. It attacks cells everywhere. It is insanely infectious
“A very important and informative thread about why the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant is now dominating in the Northeast US and is expected to spread. Please protect yourselves and others by wearing N95 masks. I am truly concerned about the #longCOVID wave that follows this infection.”
That’s one poster on twitter. I have taken the time to read around, and there is little concern about this. Even the exaggerated growth rate in the U.K. (up 4% in a week) is likely down to limited data, that was rpthen updated to be more like 0.1%).
Waving long covid about is the same as the idiots who think that every covid infection is like playing Russian Roulette with long covid. There is no evidence that that is the case.
There has been a recent study which suggests in some patients covid spreads quite widely through the body, and it’s possible that this may act as a reservoir for recurrent illness. However we don’t really have a definition of long covid, and it means different things to different people.
Lots of people have something or other right now. Perhaps it has been like that for the past 500 years but without the testing.
I would never have known I had Covid (nor even a mild cold or flu) over Christmas had I not tested.
The front page of the FT is a long wait about the UK’s sickly status. However, it is noticeable that none of the economists quoted has any suggestion of a remedy
I struggle to see what Labour will do, other than move much closer to the EU
Hmmm.
The problem was caused by Brexit.
I wonder if your favourite chatbot can suggest ANY remedy at all...
Unfortunately so. The UK's "sickly status" is both self-inflicted and now unavoidable. We need to recognise that so we can start mitigating the damage.
That's how (viral) evolution works. It's not surprising at all.
Of course. The vaccines apply evolutionary pressure
However, Sars-Cov-2 is evolving at an unprecedented rate - apparently. This might be because we are doing unprecedented amounts of vaccinations
Aksherly, if you listen to an early "How to Vaccinate the World" episode they had (IIRC) some french scientist positing that vaccinating everyone in the way that we were might lead to precisely the scale of new variants that we are seeing now.
Still utterly mystified by the lack of chat or publicity about the £2 maximum single bus fares. It's cut the price of the longest journeys by 80%. To go into Toon is 1/3 of the price it was last week for me. Yet I'm having to tell even frequent bus users of its existence. Why?
Yes, train fares are front page news. Yet there are far more bus passengers than train passengers. But editors of broadsheet newspapers and people who work at the BBC don't get buses.
Actually, if you think about it, vaccines are of course driving viral evolution. It’s a classic genetic pressure. However, viruses are not ‘super-heroes’, they cannot explore an infinite variety of mutation, at least mot withou potential costs. So in order to overcome vaccine induced immunity, often a mutation will arise that allows this, but may have consequences elsewhere.
It’s also important to to mistake a new variant taking over for it somehow being more dangerous and virulent than any other variant. As a wave of one variant goes through it runs out of people to infect, and the next wave is driven by a new variant that has some abiliy to evade the existing community immunity.
Note, this does not mean evading the whole immune response - no variant has come close to that - rather it is the neutralising antibody response.
There is a lot of wibbling in places, notably the US, about XB1.5 (or whatever the exact designation is), but little scientific concern. It’s mostly the media, as ever, failing to understand science.
No that’s not true. There is genuine concern that XBB15 might be a sinister development. It has characteristics that suggest it might cause more Long Covid than prior variants. It attacks cells everywhere. It is insanely infectious
“A very important and informative thread about why the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant is now dominating in the Northeast US and is expected to spread. Please protect yourselves and others by wearing N95 masks. I am truly concerned about the #longCOVID wave that follows this infection.”
That’s one poster on twitter. I have taken the time to read around, and there is little concern about this. Even the exaggerated growth rate in the U.K. (up 4% in a week) is likely down to limited data, that was rpthen updated to be more like 0.1%).
Waving long covid about is the same as the idiots who think that every covid infection is like playing Russian Roulette with long covid. There is no evidence that that is the case.
There has been a recent study which suggests in some patients covid spreads quite widely through the body, and it’s possible that this may act as a reservoir for recurrent illness. However we don’t really have a definition of long covid, and it means different things to different people.
Er, she’s head of a lab at Yale School of Medicine which specifically studies Long Covid. The guy she’s quoting is a Harvard Phd and Peking Uni professor. They aren’t “randoms on Twitter”
And there are plenty of other scientists who disagree. That’s the nature of science.
Fine, you wibble all you want, but please try to balance the doom tweets with some more grounded stuff. Try @BristOliver@kallmemeg for starters.
You’re projecting
I’m not “wibbling”. I explicitly said this is NOT a reason to panic, but it IS a cause for concern. I’m right
Not entirely unexpected that a scientist who is head of a lab studying long covid thinks that a new development brings a higher risk of long covid.
Besides those studying or treating long covid, who would have an expert opinion on long covid?
LOL good point. But the study of long covid is surely in its infancy and I wouldn't rule out some students making assumptions and then finding the data to support those assumptions.
Actually, if you think about it, vaccines are of course driving viral evolution. It’s a classic genetic pressure. However, viruses are not ‘super-heroes’, they cannot explore an infinite variety of mutation, at least mot withou potential costs. So in order to overcome vaccine induced immunity, often a mutation will arise that allows this, but may have consequences elsewhere.
It’s also important to to mistake a new variant taking over for it somehow being more dangerous and virulent than any other variant. As a wave of one variant goes through it runs out of people to infect, and the next wave is driven by a new variant that has some abiliy to evade the existing community immunity.
Note, this does not mean evading the whole immune response - no variant has come close to that - rather it is the neutralising antibody response.
There is a lot of wibbling in places, notably the US, about XB1.5 (or whatever the exact designation is), but little scientific concern. It’s mostly the media, as ever, failing to understand science.
No that’s not true. There is genuine concern that XBB15 might be a sinister development. It has characteristics that suggest it might cause more Long Covid than prior variants. It attacks cells everywhere. It is insanely infectious
“A very important and informative thread about why the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant is now dominating in the Northeast US and is expected to spread. Please protect yourselves and others by wearing N95 masks. I am truly concerned about the #longCOVID wave that follows this infection.”
That’s one poster on twitter. I have taken the time to read around, and there is little concern about this. Even the exaggerated growth rate in the U.K. (up 4% in a week) is likely down to limited data, that was rpthen updated to be more like 0.1%).
Waving long covid about is the same as the idiots who think that every covid infection is like playing Russian Roulette with long covid. There is no evidence that that is the case.
There has been a recent study which suggests in some patients covid spreads quite widely through the body, and it’s possible that this may act as a reservoir for recurrent illness. However we don’t really have a definition of long covid, and it means different things to different people.
Er, she’s head of a lab at Yale School of Medicine which specifically studies Long Covid. The guy she’s quoting is a Harvard Phd and Peking Uni professor. They aren’t “randoms on Twitter”
And there are plenty of other scientists who disagree. That’s the nature of science.
Fine, you wibble all you want, but please try to balance the doom tweets with some more grounded stuff. Try @BristOliver@kallmemeg for starters.
You’re projecting
I’m not “wibbling”. I explicitly said this is NOT a reason to panic, but it IS a cause for concern. I’m right
Not entirely unexpected that a scientist who is head of a lab studying long covid thinks that a new development brings a higher risk of long covid.
Besides those studying or treating long covid, who would have an expert opinion on long covid?
When unsure on which opinion to follow on the internet I find it best to pick the one who makes the most use of random capitalisation and hyperbole.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Well, yes. That's what 'both sides' means.
Fact is, though, that we had a decent (in comparison) deal under May, and binned it. That wasn't the EU.
Actually I think the Northern Ireland Protocol a horrible bit of executive overreach by the EU. But we're stuck with it, like we're stuck with Brexit itself*. The sooner people realise that the better. It's taking a long time.
The issues with the NHS run much deeper that a mere problem with capacity, and we need a root and branch look at taxation (NI, business rates, wealth taxes) as well as GROWING THE BLOODY ECONOMY to pay for things.
They need to talk about the thing that has shrunk the economy (and it's not Covid)
It's all the money that gets wasted on property, instead of productive things.
Set aside the NIP for a second, this is a bigger issue. Both the EU and future counterparty negotiators know for a fact the UK team are ill-informed and stupid - as witnessed by our calamities with the TCP, NIP, AusNZ deal etc. We aren't trusted by the people we want to negotiate with (America) and treated like a joke by the ones who took advantage of us.
As I said last night, our diplomacy is another thing that has been trashed by Brexit.
The only Country in history to impose sanctions on itself.
True, but much of that was due to silly old Liz and her attempts to ingratiate herself with the Tory membership. I'm hoping that a return to hard-nosed negotiating in the British interest will come back into fashion - not desperate manoeuvres to make Boris's Brexit look good, which is all it's been about hitherto.
Still utterly mystified by the lack of chat or publicity about the £2 maximum single bus fares. It's cut the price of the longest journeys by 80%. To go into Toon is 1/3 of the price it was last week for me. Yet I'm having to tell even frequent bus users of its existence. Why?
Yes, train fares are front page news. Yet there are far more bus passengers than train passengers. But editors of broadsheet newspapers and people who work at the BBC don't get buses.
It's highly unlikely that people who work at the BBC don't get buses as many of them work in London and our buses are generally excellent. However, the £2 bus fare cap doesn't apply to us in the capital as our bus fares are already below that level so perhaps that helps to explain it. Buses are great though, I remember Corbyn made a big thing of policy in this area and was mocked for it, including IIRC by PB Tories.
That's how (viral) evolution works. It's not surprising at all.
Of course. The vaccines apply evolutionary pressure
However, Sars-Cov-2 is evolving at an unprecedented rate - apparently. This might be because we are doing unprecedented amounts of vaccinations
Aksherly, if you listen to an early "How to Vaccinate the World" episode they had (IIRC) some french scientist positing that vaccinating everyone in the way that we were might lead to precisely the scale of new variants that we are seeing now.
IIRC also, they pretty quickly shut her down.
Also recall the flak that the committee on vaccination got for not agrreing to vaccinate young children? Balancing risks and rewards for the child. I think with covid people will need to accept that’s it’s not going away. It can’t be vaccinated out of existence. What you can do is train immune systems so that when it encounters covid, for most it’s not fatal, and indeed for the overwhelming majority in the UK that’s the case. We’ve had covid, as safely as possible, so now whatever new variant emerges, the long term immune system is ready.
I think again we are seeing the discrepancy between neutralising antibodies and the longer term immune system. Variants emerge all th3 time and able to infect people (this is the immune escape talked about). The immune escape is against neutralising antibodies. NOT against the full immune system. Hence in the U.K. more than a million people probably have covid right now, but only a few thousand are in hospital.
The front page of the FT is a long wait about the UK’s sickly status. However, it is noticeable that none of the economists quoted has any suggestion of a remedy
I struggle to see what Labour will do, other than move much closer to the EU
Hmmm.
The problem was caused by Brexit.
I wonder if your favourite chatbot can suggest ANY remedy at all...
Nope - the problem is Brexit and the utterly insane methodology used by the Treasury when it comes to decision making.
Most of which can be traced back to one George Osbourne and his "Austerity".
The London centric metrics used by the Treasury date from before I was born. Heseltine used to rail against them.
Was that classic rail or HS?
He bought his own track, probably.
Unlike Proper Tories, who inherited 7 foot guage from Brunel….
Brunel was an immigrant's son. If they took 7 foot it would be from Daniel Gooch (MP for Cricklade but never actually spoke in the Commons, using it just because it had excellent dining facilities).
However, they would have been more likely to go with Robert Stephenson (Tory MP for Whitby) and the standard gauge. In fact, they did...
To be true pb.com you've got to weave Brexit into this somehow.
Come on, try harder.
How about: Brunel's father was French and if we had Brexited earlier it would have kept him out, the rotten foreigner. It would have of course meant we would have Brexited before we actually joined, but that is just a technicality.
Pretty close, the line here would be to talk about the benefits of European immigration and how Brexit has ruined it. Brunel's father would never be able to come here today and the xenophobia would be too strong.
The Stephenson's are a little harder. You'd probably have to major on the export of coal from the north-east and how these collieries would "never" have succeeded without a European market to export to? Brexit has now ruined that etc.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Absolutism is stupid - both sides made mistakes as happens in every negotiation everywhere. But its clear which side came away satisfied and which side didn't.
We can wail and moan about the EU all we like. They had a pre-stated position and red lines. We said they would crumble, they didn't. We negotiated a deal which our own side now say they didn't understand and didn't expect the counterparty to implement.
Set aside the NIP for a second, this is a bigger issue. Both the EU and future counterparty negotiators know for a fact the UK team are ill-informed and stupid - as witnessed by our calamities with the TCP, NIP, AusNZ deal etc. We aren't trusted by the people we want to negotiate with (America) and treated like a joke by the ones who took advantage of us.
Spot on. Then there was the risible grandstanding.
We'll walk away with No Deal rather than a Bad Deal!
We've got a Deal! It's a Great Deal! And we only got it because we were prepared to walk away!
Hang on, it was a Bad Deal! - It's so Bad we can't implement it!
Actually, if you think about it, vaccines are of course driving viral evolution. It’s a classic genetic pressure. However, viruses are not ‘super-heroes’, they cannot explore an infinite variety of mutation, at least mot withou potential costs. So in order to overcome vaccine induced immunity, often a mutation will arise that allows this, but may have consequences elsewhere.
It’s also important to to mistake a new variant taking over for it somehow being more dangerous and virulent than any other variant. As a wave of one variant goes through it runs out of people to infect, and the next wave is driven by a new variant that has some abiliy to evade the existing community immunity.
Note, this does not mean evading the whole immune response - no variant has come close to that - rather it is the neutralising antibody response.
There is a lot of wibbling in places, notably the US, about XB1.5 (or whatever the exact designation is), but little scientific concern. It’s mostly the media, as ever, failing to understand science.
No that’s not true. There is genuine concern that XBB15 might be a sinister development. It has characteristics that suggest it might cause more Long Covid than prior variants. It attacks cells everywhere. It is insanely infectious
“A very important and informative thread about why the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant is now dominating in the Northeast US and is expected to spread. Please protect yourselves and others by wearing N95 masks. I am truly concerned about the #longCOVID wave that follows this infection.”
That’s one poster on twitter. I have taken the time to read around, and there is little concern about this. Even the exaggerated growth rate in the U.K. (up 4% in a week) is likely down to limited data, that was rpthen updated to be more like 0.1%).
Waving long covid about is the same as the idiots who think that every covid infection is like playing Russian Roulette with long covid. There is no evidence that that is the case.
There has been a recent study which suggests in some patients covid spreads quite widely through the body, and it’s possible that this may act as a reservoir for recurrent illness. However we don’t really have a definition of long covid, and it means different things to different people.
Lots of people have something or other right now. Perhaps it has been like that for the past 500 years but without the testing.
I would never have known I had Covid (nor even a mild cold or flu) over Christmas had I not tested.
Something's cheering the markets today - FTSE over 7600, 250 over 19k.
Always look at the volumes. Maybe it is good news and positivity but at this time of year there are still a lot of people, clients and traders, away and so in low volumes a few trades can distort things and give a misleading picture.
Still utterly mystified by the lack of chat or publicity about the £2 maximum single bus fares. It's cut the price of the longest journeys by 80%. To go into Toon is 1/3 of the price it was last week for me. Yet I'm having to tell even frequent bus users of its existence. Why?
Yes, train fares are front page news. Yet there are far more bus passengers than train passengers. But editors of broadsheet newspapers and people who work at the BBC don't get buses.
It's highly unlikely that people who work at the BBC don't get buses as many of them work in London and our buses are generally excellent. However, the £2 bus fare cap doesn't apply to us in the capital as our bus fares are already below that level so perhaps that helps to explain it. Buses are great though, I remember Corbyn made a big thing of policy in this area and was mocked for it, including IIRC by PB Tories.
Based on age surely the majority of Tory voting regular bus users don't pay anything at all. Those that pay probably don't vote or vote reliable Labour.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Because neither Varadkar nor the EU think they did get it wrong. They just want the UK to implement the agreed NIP and move on. Varadkar possibly thinks a few warm words might help things along. ie the EU makes some token adjustments and the UK will sign up in time for the US brokered Good Friday Agreement celebrations this Spring. I am not sure he really does think that however.
That seems entirely plausible, and not very concerning.
The concern is the enormous infectivity, the speed of evolution, the capacity for it to reinfect - evading vaccines and antibodies - and the chances of Long Covid and ancillary infections of eyes etc
It is not a small thing, XBB15, from what I’ve read - but it is not the end of the world
Something's cheering the markets today - FTSE over 7600, 250 over 19k.
Always look at the volumes. Maybe it is good news and positivity but at this time of year there are still a lot of people, clients and traders, away and so in low volumes a few trades can distort things and give a misleading picture.
I did a quick financial MOT check yesterday and moving some cash into shares (also higher savings interest for the rest). Imagine others did similar over the Christmas and New Year break. Also bonus time, leads to new money coming in.
Or perhaps the AI has just been wisely following me in.....
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Because neither Varadkar nor the EU think they did get it wrong. They just want the UK to implement the agreed NIP and move on. Varadkar possibly thinks a few warm words might help things along. ie the EU makes some token adjustments and the UK will sign up in time for the US brokered Good Friday Agreement celebrations this Spring. I am not sure he really does think that however.
If Rishi had any sense he'd say something along the lines of, 'Yes, Boris screwed up Brexit. We don't have to pretend any longer. But let's roll up our sleeves and sort this bloody catastrophe out once and for all.' The political kudos he'd gain from such an approach would be vast.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Because neither Varadkar nor the EU think they did get it wrong. They just want the UK to implement the agreed NIP and move on. Varadkar possibly thinks a few warm words might help things along. ie the EU makes some token adjustments and the UK will sign up in time for the US brokered Good Friday Agreement celebrations this Spring. I am not sure he really does think that however.
If Rishi had any sense he'd say something along the lines of, 'Yes, Boris screwed up Brexit. We don't have to pretend any longer. But let's roll up our sleeves and sort this bloody catastrophe out once and for all.' The political kudos he'd gain from such an approach would be vast.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Because neither Varadkar nor the EU think they did get it wrong. They just want the UK to implement the agreed NIP and move on. Varadkar possibly thinks a few warm words might help things along. ie the EU makes some token adjustments and the UK will sign up in time for the US brokered Good Friday Agreement celebrations this Spring. I am not sure he really does think that however.
If Rishi had any sense he'd say something along the lines of, 'Yes, Boris screwed up Brexit. We don't have to pretend any longer. But let's roll up our sleeves and sort this bloody catastrophe out once and for all.' The political kudos he'd gain from such an approach would be vast.
Amongst people who wouldn't vote for him anyway, perhaps...
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Well, yes. That's what 'both sides' means.
Fact is, though, that we had a decent (in comparison) deal under May, and binned it. That wasn't the EU.
No we did not have a decent deal under May, we had an atrocious, appalling deal which would have left us subjugated to EU laws but without any EU elections to have our say in those laws.
May's proposal was the worst possible arrangement, thoroughly undemocratic. Being in the EU would have been infinitely better as we'd have a say in our laws. Being out with the Protocol is infinitely better for GB as it means we choose our own laws.
Nothing about May's deal was better. Literally nothing.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Because neither Varadkar nor the EU think they did get it wrong. They just want the UK to implement the agreed NIP and move on. Varadkar possibly thinks a few warm words might help things along. ie the EU makes some token adjustments and the UK will sign up in time for the US brokered Good Friday Agreement celebrations this Spring. I am not sure he really does think that however.
If Rishi had any sense he'd say something along the lines of, 'Yes, Boris screwed up Brexit. We don't have to pretend any longer. But let's roll up our sleeves and sort this bloody catastrophe out once and for all.' The political kudos he'd gain from such an approach would be vast.
Sounds like a good idea. Theresa May eventually tried that damage limitation approach. It didn't do her any good against Johnson's snake oil.
Something's cheering the markets today - FTSE over 7600, 250 over 19k.
A lot of people sort out their portfolios over the holidays, and read all the media and expert tips for the coming year, and then buy in the market on the first trading day. The end of the so-called 'santa rally'. Every year I take a buy position at or just after mid-December and sell today or tomorrow; this year hasn't been as good as some previous.
Nice article from Marie Le Conte. I'd been thinking along similar lines: 2023 may well be a fairly bog standard year after the abnormality of 2016-22. (£)
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
Fudged or aggregated counting of medical students is not a lie, so should not be compared with the 40 new hospitals, which will certainly not be 40 new hospitals. It might be misleading to those who read it as 7,500 more newly-qualified doctors a year.
Something's cheering the markets today - FTSE over 7600, 250 over 19k.
A lot of people sort out their portfolios over the holidays, and read all the media and expert tips for the coming year, and then buy in the market on the first trading day. The end of the so-called 'santa rally'. Every year I take a buy position at or just after mid-December and sell today or tomorrow; this year hasn't been as good as some previous.
There's a popular pundit view that UK equities have become relatively underpriced.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Well, yes. That's what 'both sides' means.
Fact is, though, that we had a decent (in comparison) deal under May, and binned it. That wasn't the EU.
No we did not have a decent deal under May, we had an atrocious, appalling deal which would have left us subjugated to EU laws but without any EU elections to have our say in those laws.
May's proposal was the worst possible arrangement, thoroughly undemocratic. Being in the EU would have been infinitely better as we'd have a say in our laws. Being out with the Protocol is infinitely better for GB as it means we choose our own laws.
Nothing about May's deal was better. Literally nothing.
And Sir Keir must have agreed, because he led Labour in opposing it.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Well, yes. That's what 'both sides' means.
Fact is, though, that we had a decent (in comparison) deal under May, and binned it. That wasn't the EU.
No we did not have a decent deal under May, we had an atrocious, appalling deal which would have left us subjugated to EU laws but without any EU elections to have our say in those laws.
May's proposal was the worst possible arrangement, thoroughly undemocratic. Being in the EU would have been infinitely better as we'd have a say in our laws. Being out with the Protocol is infinitely better for GB as it means we choose our own laws.
Nothing about May's deal was better. Literally nothing.
The "we" obviously doesn't include Northern Ireland on your analysis. But I think valid, and somewhat honest, if it doesn't.
Brexit is clearly only for (a part of) England. No-one genuinely caring about the Union would support it - DUP take note.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Absolutism is stupid - both sides made mistakes as happens in every negotiation everywhere. But its clear which side came away satisfied and which side didn't.
We can wail and moan about the EU all we like. They had a pre-stated position and red lines. We said they would crumble, they didn't. We negotiated a deal which our own side now say they didn't understand and didn't expect the counterparty to implement.
Set aside the NIP for a second, this is a bigger issue. Both the EU and future counterparty negotiators know for a fact the UK team are ill-informed and stupid - as witnessed by our calamities with the TCP, NIP, AusNZ deal etc. We aren't trusted by the people we want to negotiate with (America) and treated like a joke by the ones who took advantage of us.
Spot on. Then there was the risible grandstanding.
We'll walk away with No Deal rather than a Bad Deal!
We've got a Deal! It's a Great Deal! And we only got it because we were prepared to walk away!
Hang on, it was a Bad Deal! - It's so Bad we can't implement it!
Just really embarrassing and pathetic.
There was no grandstanding, there was brilliant negotiations. The deal is multi-faceted and the arrangements for GB are what matter more than the arrangements for NI and we got what we wanted there.
The Protocol was never something the UK wanted, it was something the EU wanted and they thought they had it in the Backstop they'd compelled May to sign up for. That they negotiated away the backstop to be replaced with the risible Protocol was a negotiating masterclass by the UK and only because we were prepared to walk away, as you quoted.
And then the EU are in no position to make the Protocol be implemented. The one thing they wanted and negotiated hard on, they left us holding all the cards so we could just refuse to implement it. Oh dear, what a shame.
That's a success not a failure on the UK's part. Its a failure on the EU's.
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
Fudged or aggregated counting of medical students is not a lie, so should not be compared with the 40 new hospitals, which will certainly not be 40 new hospitals. It might be misleading to those who read it as 7,500 more newly-qualified doctors a year.
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
Fudged or aggregated counting of medical students is not a lie, so should not be compared with the 40 new hospitals, which will certainly not be 40 new hospitals. It might be misleading to those who read it as 7,500 more newly-qualified doctors a year.
So you're saying "training 7500 more doctors" doesn't mean 7500 more doctors qualifying? I wouldn't expect very many to fail, so if "training 7500 more doctors" means "training 1500 more doctors in each of the five years so only 1500 more qualify each year (less a few failures)" then calling it "not a lie" is generous, to say the least.
MPs are wearing stab vests to constituency surgeries and considering hiring private security as they fear another politician will be killed before their safety is taken seriously.
Sir David Amess, Conservative MP for Southend West, was murdered at a constituency surgery in October 2021, prompting the promise of stronger security for MPs. Jo Cox, Labour MP for Batley & Spen, was murdered in 2016.
However, more than a year after the death of Amess politicians feel as vulnerable as ever and believe that there will be another murder before change comes.
I cannot read the paywalled article but what exactly do MPs want? Security guard or police protection would be expensive and intrusive, and might deter marginalised constituents from seeking help. Metal detectors at MPs' surgeries would not have saved Jo Cox who was murdered in the street.
They mention stab vests, panic alarms, possibly a hired security guard (who could be in plain clothes and discreet) at surgeries, improved security of MPs' homes. Nothing is perfect, as you say, and if I was still an MP in sleepy Broxtowe I don't think I'd do all that, but it would have prevented the David Amess murder and the near-fatal attack on Stephen Timms. There would be some cost, but in this case I think the taxpayer should be willing to cough up - it's not in the public interest that good people (perhaps especially women) should be scared out of helping to run the country.
I disagree, I would not waste a penny on the bunch of troughers. They are murdering thousands by wrecking the country with their indifference and stupidity.
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
Fudged or aggregated counting of medical students is not a lie, so should not be compared with the 40 new hospitals, which will certainly not be 40 new hospitals. It might be misleading to those who read it as 7,500 more newly-qualified doctors a year.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Because neither Varadkar nor the EU think they did get it wrong. They just want the UK to implement the agreed NIP and move on. Varadkar possibly thinks a few warm words might help things along. ie the EU makes some token adjustments and the UK will sign up in time for the US brokered Good Friday Agreement celebrations this Spring. I am not sure he really does think that however.
If Rishi had any sense he'd say something along the lines of, 'Yes, Boris screwed up Brexit. We don't have to pretend any longer. But let's roll up our sleeves and sort this bloody catastrophe out once and for all.' The political kudos he'd gain from such an approach would be vast.
It's a sign of how Brexit is turning out that its apologists are reduced to arguing it was never about tangible benefits, only about restoring "self government" - ie it's good because it's good.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Because neither Varadkar nor the EU think they did get it wrong. They just want the UK to implement the agreed NIP and move on. Varadkar possibly thinks a few warm words might help things along. ie the EU makes some token adjustments and the UK will sign up in time for the US brokered Good Friday Agreement celebrations this Spring. I am not sure he really does think that however.
If Rishi had any sense he'd say something along the lines of, 'Yes, Boris screwed up Brexit. We don't have to pretend any longer. But let's roll up our sleeves and sort this bloody catastrophe out once and for all.' The political kudos he'd gain from such an approach would be vast.
Amongst people who wouldn't vote for him anyway, perhaps...
We have international trade agreements that not only do not work, they further risk much bigger things like the GFA and our relationship with the US.
Saying "we fucked this up and we want to fix it" is critical for our relationships with these key partners. The remaining Tory voters can have their stupidity weaponised by the Tories trying to blame the Biden administration for taking a hard line over the GFA, but that's an increasingly shallow gene pool to fish for votes in.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Well, yes. That's what 'both sides' means.
Fact is, though, that we had a decent (in comparison) deal under May, and binned it. That wasn't the EU.
No we did not have a decent deal under May, we had an atrocious, appalling deal which would have left us subjugated to EU laws but without any EU elections to have our say in those laws.
May's proposal was the worst possible arrangement, thoroughly undemocratic. Being in the EU would have been infinitely better as we'd have a say in our laws. Being out with the Protocol is infinitely better for GB as it means we choose our own laws.
Nothing about May's deal was better. Literally nothing.
The "we" obviously doesn't include Northern Ireland on your analysis. But I think valid, and somewhat honest, if it doesn't.
Brexit is clearly only for (a part of) England. No-one genuinely caring about the Union would support it - DUP take note.
Well, yes, NI is an extremely low priority. Getting what we want for England matters more than NI. Once England has what it wants, then NI can be dealt with - which is the order that things have happened in with the deal.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Absolutism is stupid - both sides made mistakes as happens in every negotiation everywhere. But its clear which side came away satisfied and which side didn't.
We can wail and moan about the EU all we like. They had a pre-stated position and red lines. We said they would crumble, they didn't. We negotiated a deal which our own side now say they didn't understand and didn't expect the counterparty to implement.
Set aside the NIP for a second, this is a bigger issue. Both the EU and future counterparty negotiators know for a fact the UK team are ill-informed and stupid - as witnessed by our calamities with the TCP, NIP, AusNZ deal etc. We aren't trusted by the people we want to negotiate with (America) and treated like a joke by the ones who took advantage of us.
Spot on. Then there was the risible grandstanding.
We'll walk away with No Deal rather than a Bad Deal!
We've got a Deal! It's a Great Deal! And we only got it because we were prepared to walk away!
Hang on, it was a Bad Deal! - It's so Bad we can't implement it!
Just really embarrassing and pathetic.
There was no grandstanding, there was brilliant negotiations. The deal is multi-faceted and the arrangements for GB are what matter more than the arrangements for NI and we got what we wanted there.
The Protocol was never something the UK wanted, it was something the EU wanted and they thought they had it in the Backstop they'd compelled May to sign up for. That they negotiated away the backstop to be replaced with the risible Protocol was a negotiating masterclass by the UK and only because we were prepared to walk away, as you quoted.
And then the EU are in no position to make the Protocol be implemented. The one thing they wanted and negotiated hard on, they left us holding all the cards so we could just refuse to implement it. Oh dear, what a shame.
That's a success not a failure on the UK's part. Its a failure on the EU's.
That was a news report from the Planet Zog. Next up on your intergalactic news feed is Deep Thinking with David Frost.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Because neither Varadkar nor the EU think they did get it wrong. They just want the UK to implement the agreed NIP and move on. Varadkar possibly thinks a few warm words might help things along. ie the EU makes some token adjustments and the UK will sign up in time for the US brokered Good Friday Agreement celebrations this Spring. I am not sure he really does think that however.
If Rishi had any sense he'd say something along the lines of, 'Yes, Boris screwed up Brexit. We don't have to pretend any longer. But let's roll up our sleeves and sort this bloody catastrophe out once and for all.' The political kudos he'd gain from such an approach would be vast.
It's a sign of how Brexit is turning out that its apologists are reduced to arguing it was never about tangible benefits, only about restoring "self government" - ie it's good because it's good.
This, oldish (2020) long read is good on NHS funding and capacity.
TLDR, we spend almost nothing on capital infrastructure, and if there is a single metric managed for in the NHS it is maximum throughput with the lowest amount of beds.
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
Fudged or aggregated counting of medical students is not a lie, so should not be compared with the 40 new hospitals, which will certainly not be 40 new hospitals. It might be misleading to those who read it as 7,500 more newly-qualified doctors a year.
Our population has risen by about 15 per cent this century so a similar increase in medical students looks proportionate.
The article I just posted suggests that Treasury deliberately throttles med student intake because more doctors might mean they deliver more healthcare which in turn needs paying for.
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
Fudged or aggregated counting of medical students is not a lie, so should not be compared with the 40 new hospitals, which will certainly not be 40 new hospitals. It might be misleading to those who read it as 7,500 more newly-qualified doctors a year.
So you're saying "training 7500 more doctors" doesn't mean 7500 more doctors qualifying? I wouldn't expect very many to fail, so if "training 7500 more doctors" means "training 1500 more doctors in each of the five years so only 1500 more qualify each year (less a few failures)" then calling it "not a lie" is generous, to say the least.
I'm saying "We’ll train 7,500 more doctors ... a year" probably means there will be 7,500 more medical students being trained to be doctors. But since medicine is (usually) a five-year course, that only requires admitting 1,500 more students to year one. After a time, there will be 1,500 more first years, 1,500 more second years, ... and 1,500 more fifth years, making 7,500 additional medical students. At least, that is how I read it.
And I do not think this should be controversial. If it were announced that your daughter's school were to double in size, surely you would expect there to be twice as many pupils at the school, not twice as many in each year which would mean the school being seven times as big.
This, oldish (2020) long read is good on NHS funding and capacity.
TLDR, we spend almost nothing on capital infrastructure, and if there is a single metric managed for in the NHS it is maximum throughput with the lowest amount of beds.
This, oldish (2020) long read is good on NHS funding and capacity.
TLDR, we spend almost nothing on capital infrastructure, and if there is a single metric managed for in the NHS it is maximum throughput with the lowest amount of beds.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Absolutism is stupid - both sides made mistakes as happens in every negotiation everywhere. But its clear which side came away satisfied and which side didn't.
We can wail and moan about the EU all we like. They had a pre-stated position and red lines. We said they would crumble, they didn't. We negotiated a deal which our own side now say they didn't understand and didn't expect the counterparty to implement.
Set aside the NIP for a second, this is a bigger issue. Both the EU and future counterparty negotiators know for a fact the UK team are ill-informed and stupid - as witnessed by our calamities with the TCP, NIP, AusNZ deal etc. We aren't trusted by the people we want to negotiate with (America) and treated like a joke by the ones who took advantage of us.
Spot on. Then there was the risible grandstanding.
We'll walk away with No Deal rather than a Bad Deal!
We've got a Deal! It's a Great Deal! And we only got it because we were prepared to walk away!
Hang on, it was a Bad Deal! - It's so Bad we can't implement it!
Just really embarrassing and pathetic.
There was no grandstanding, there was brilliant negotiations. The deal is multi-faceted and the arrangements for GB are what matter more than the arrangements for NI and we got what we wanted there.
The Protocol was never something the UK wanted, it was something the EU wanted and they thought they had it in the Backstop they'd compelled May to sign up for. That they negotiated away the backstop to be replaced with the risible Protocol was a negotiating masterclass by the UK and only because we were prepared to walk away, as you quoted.
And then the EU are in no position to make the Protocol be implemented. The one thing they wanted and negotiated hard on, they left us holding all the cards so we could just refuse to implement it. Oh dear, what a shame.
That's a success not a failure on the UK's part. Its a failure on the EU's.
Too too ludicrous. I'm afraid you've become a Troll on this topic.
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
Lots of medical schools have opened in the past few years.
Aston - 2015 Buckingham - 2015 Preston - 2015 Anglian Ruskin -2018 Lincoln - 2018 Edge Hill - 2019 Sunderland - 2019 Kent & Canterbury Christchurch - 2020 Brunel - 2021 (Overseas students only at present) Ulster - 2021
Numbers of students starting medical course have been increasing over the past years as well.
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
Fudged or aggregated counting of medical students is not a lie, so should not be compared with the 40 new hospitals, which will certainly not be 40 new hospitals. It might be misleading to those who read it as 7,500 more newly-qualified doctors a year.
That's how (viral) evolution works. It's not surprising at all.
Of course. The vaccines apply evolutionary pressure
However, Sars-Cov-2 is evolving at an unprecedented rate - apparently. This might be because we are doing unprecedented amounts of vaccinations
That doesn't seem to be the case. It was apparent from the start, before any vaccines. that it was unusually fast mutating for a coronavirus. Vaccines have simply driven the evolution within a tighter set of constraints within the vaccinated population - and note there is still a large unvaccinated population globally.
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
Fudged or aggregated counting of medical students is not a lie, so should not be compared with the 40 new hospitals, which will certainly not be 40 new hospitals. It might be misleading to those who read it as 7,500 more newly-qualified doctors a year.
Great, laudable aim, the public will I am sure support this.
BUT - how will this be achieved in practice? Expanding current medical schools? New schools? Who will provide the training?
Like many a popular opposition facing a very unpopular government I suspect detail will be very, very light, and promises will not have any details.
I want a labour government, and as soon as possible, but I want more detail.
(And I know this is a tweet, but does anyone truly expect Reeves would have the answers to my questions?)
There have been five new medical schools opened already this century so opening some more is surely not beyond imagination.
My complaints would be that not enough is done to address poor retention but that would take more than a tweet, and I suspect the numbers are being fudged so that 7,500 new medical students should be divided by the four, five or six years they will be in training.
Five new medical schools? Not sure of the intake, but generously 200 each? That’s a thousand.
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
Fudged or aggregated counting of medical students is not a lie, so should not be compared with the 40 new hospitals, which will certainly not be 40 new hospitals. It might be misleading to those who read it as 7,500 more newly-qualified doctors a year.
Our population has risen by about 15 per cent this century so a similar increase in medical students looks proportionate.
The article I just posted suggests that Treasury deliberately throttles med student intake because more doctors might mean they deliver more healthcare which in turn needs paying for.
It is also cheaper to bring doctors already trained, from abroad.
Apart from the same fact that there is a world wide shortage of doctors. Which will get worse, on current projections.
Another point is that medicals staff from aboard tend to come from poorer countries, so their initial expectation of pay is lower. Which is handy if you are trying to keep pay down.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Well, yes. That's what 'both sides' means.
Fact is, though, that we had a decent (in comparison) deal under May, and binned it. That wasn't the EU.
No we did not have a decent deal under May, we had an atrocious, appalling deal which would have left us subjugated to EU laws but without any EU elections to have our say in those laws.
May's proposal was the worst possible arrangement, thoroughly undemocratic. Being in the EU would have been infinitely better as we'd have a say in our laws. Being out with the Protocol is infinitely better for GB as it means we choose our own laws.
Nothing about May's deal was better. Literally nothing.
The "we" obviously doesn't include Northern Ireland on your analysis. But I think valid, and somewhat honest, if it doesn't.
Brexit is clearly only for (a part of) England. No-one genuinely caring about the Union would support it - DUP take note.
Well, yes, NI is an extremely low priority. Getting what we want for England matters more than NI. Once England has what it wants, then NI can be dealt with - which is the order that things have happened in with the deal.
The majority of the electorate haven't got what they want - as clearly demonstrated by the steady decline in those saying Brexit was the right idea.
You keep saying 'we' when what you mean is a hard core of sovereignty absolutists of which you are a part.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Well, yes. That's what 'both sides' means.
Fact is, though, that we had a decent (in comparison) deal under May, and binned it. That wasn't the EU.
No we did not have a decent deal under May, we had an atrocious, appalling deal which would have left us subjugated to EU laws but without any EU elections to have our say in those laws.
May's proposal was the worst possible arrangement, thoroughly undemocratic. Being in the EU would have been infinitely better as we'd have a say in our laws. Being out with the Protocol is infinitely better for GB as it means we choose our own laws.
Nothing about May's deal was better. Literally nothing.
The "we" obviously doesn't include Northern Ireland on your analysis. But I think valid, and somewhat honest, if it doesn't.
Brexit is clearly only for (a part of) England. No-one genuinely caring about the Union would support it - DUP take note.
Well, yes, NI is an extremely low priority. Getting what we want for England matters more than NI. Once England has what it wants, then NI can be dealt with - which is the order that things have happened in with the deal.
How is this different from fascist ideology, with a sprinkling of 19thC imperialism ?
Russian propagandists aim to convince the viewers that "the Soviet miracle" & the expansionist glory of the Motherland are more important than life, which is "overrated." They want new maps—or rather "a globe of Russia," because its borders end...nowhere. https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1610151271356600320
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Well, yes. That's what 'both sides' means.
Fact is, though, that we had a decent (in comparison) deal under May, and binned it. That wasn't the EU.
No we did not have a decent deal under May, we had an atrocious, appalling deal which would have left us subjugated to EU laws but without any EU elections to have our say in those laws.
May's proposal was the worst possible arrangement, thoroughly undemocratic. Being in the EU would have been infinitely better as we'd have a say in our laws. Being out with the Protocol is infinitely better for GB as it means we choose our own laws.
Nothing about May's deal was better. Literally nothing.
The "we" obviously doesn't include Northern Ireland on your analysis. But I think valid, and somewhat honest, if it doesn't.
Brexit is clearly only for (a part of) England. No-one genuinely caring about the Union would support it - DUP take note.
Well, yes, NI is an extremely low priority. Getting what we want for England matters more than NI. Once England has what it wants, then NI can be dealt with - which is the order that things have happened in with the deal.
The majority of the electorate haven't got what they want - as clearly demonstrated by the steady decline in those saying Brexit was the right idea.
You keep saying 'we' when what you mean is a hard core of sovereignty absolutists of which you are a part.
Not only that but he is under 50. So in that demographic, ‘we’ is Philip Thompson, Casino Royale, and the guy that does the night shift for “Radio Broadmoor”.
This was all about the EU getting its pound of flesh. Now the Tories look done for, they don't need go be so unnecessarily hardline any more.
But it says a lot they were prepared to hurt Northern Ireland just for vengeance on the UK.
That sound a large over-interpretation of "perhaps a little bit too strict".
And as others have pointed out, it was negotiated by both sides. One of which was led by a grandstanding buffoon.
Why not just admit the EU also got it wrong?
Because neither Varadkar nor the EU think they did get it wrong. They just want the UK to implement the agreed NIP and move on. Varadkar possibly thinks a few warm words might help things along. ie the EU makes some token adjustments and the UK will sign up in time for the US brokered Good Friday Agreement celebrations this Spring. I am not sure he really does think that however.
If Rishi had any sense he'd say something along the lines of, 'Yes, Boris screwed up Brexit. We don't have to pretend any longer. But let's roll up our sleeves and sort this bloody catastrophe out once and for all.' The political kudos he'd gain from such an approach would be vast.
It's a sign of how Brexit is turning out that its apologists are reduced to arguing it was never about tangible benefits, only about restoring "self government" - ie it's good because it's good.
Yes, striking how soon the government has stopped talking about ‘Brexit benefits’. I think that’s because they realised that’s every time they did, it just reminded people that Brexit has brought no visible benefits, and lots of very visible losses.
How is this different from fascist ideology, with a sprinkling of 19thC imperialism ?
Russian propagandists aim to convince the viewers that "the Soviet miracle" & the expansionist glory of the Motherland are more important than life, which is "overrated." They want new maps—or rather "a globe of Russia," because its borders end...nowhere. https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1610151271356600320
How is this different from fascist ideology, with a sprinkling of 19thC imperialism ?
Russian propagandists aim to convince the viewers that "the Soviet miracle" & the expansionist glory of the Motherland are more important than life, which is "overrated." They want new maps—or rather "a globe of Russia," because its borders end...nowhere. https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1610151271356600320
Russia has been an openly fascist state for some time now.
Comments
I would never have known I had Covid (nor even a mild cold or flu) over Christmas had I not tested.
We can wail and moan about the EU all we like. They had a pre-stated position and red lines. We said they would crumble, they didn't. We negotiated a deal which our own side now say they didn't understand and didn't expect the counterparty to implement.
Set aside the NIP for a second, this is a bigger issue. Both the EU and future counterparty negotiators know for a fact the UK team are ill-informed and stupid - as witnessed by our calamities with the TCP, NIP, AusNZ deal etc. We aren't trusted by the people we want to negotiate with (America) and treated like a joke by the ones who took advantage of us.
The NHS may be falling over (again) but transport affects more people than the NHS does.
“I wish all a prosperous 2023.
However, in realty the XBB.1.5 SUPER variant is exploding in the USA, now responsible for >40% of all cases.
Modeling all points to it being the deadliest wave in pandemic history.
This will exceed all previous waves.
#multiyearpandemic”
https://twitter.com/jacobbaguilar/status/1609629290278141953?s=46&t=_dzvZoVfbQepKY0z_cSdTQ
Reeves is suggesting 6,500 more than that. If she is aggregating the training years then that’s as bad a lie as the 40 hospitals. And if it’s not, how the actual F is that to happen? Medical training happens a lot in clinic, not just in uni lecture theatres. Training places will be needed.
However, Sars-Cov-2 is evolving at an unprecedented rate - apparently. This might be because we are doing unprecedented amounts of vaccinations
The only Country in history to impose sanctions on itself.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/back-to-school-advice-issued-amid-high-levels-of-flu-covid-19-and-scarlet-fever
ETA tbh I'd not realised children were being flu-jabbed.
IIRC also, they pretty quickly shut her down.
But editors of broadsheet newspapers and people who work at the BBC don't get buses.
* Which is the point Varadkar is making.
“I can confidently say XBB.1.5 will NOT approach the levels of hospitalizations and deaths seen in the initial Omicron wave in the US.
However I do believe it will be the highest seen since then.
Don't be panicked, be informed 👨🔬”
https://twitter.com/jpweiland/status/1609281109610696704?s=46&t=_dzvZoVfbQepKY0z_cSdTQ
I think with covid people will need to accept that’s it’s not going away. It can’t be vaccinated out of existence. What you can do is train immune systems so that when it encounters covid, for most it’s not fatal, and indeed for the overwhelming majority in the UK that’s the case. We’ve had covid, as safely as possible, so now whatever new variant emerges, the long term immune system is ready.
I think again we are seeing the discrepancy between neutralising antibodies and the longer term immune system. Variants emerge all th3 time and able to infect people (this is the immune escape talked about). The immune escape is against neutralising antibodies. NOT against the full immune system. Hence in the U.K. more than a million people probably have covid right now, but only a few thousand are in hospital.
The Stephenson's are a little harder. You'd probably have to major on the export of coal from the north-east and how these collieries would "never" have succeeded without a European market to export to? Brexit has now ruined that etc.
We'll walk away with No Deal rather than a Bad Deal!
We've got a Deal! It's a Great Deal! And we only got it because we were prepared to walk away!
Hang on, it was a Bad Deal! - It's so Bad we can't implement it!
Just really embarrassing and pathetic.
It is not a small thing, XBB15, from what I’ve read - but it is not the end of the world
Or perhaps the AI has just been wisely following me in.....
May's proposal was the worst possible arrangement, thoroughly undemocratic. Being in the EU would have been infinitely better as we'd have a say in our laws. Being out with the Protocol is infinitely better for GB as it means we choose our own laws.
Nothing about May's deal was better. Literally nothing.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/2023-strange-year-in-politics-westminster-b2254767.html
We currently admit 10,000 medical students a year. Reeves is (probably) talking about a 10-15 per cent increase.
https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/funding-for-providers/health-education-funding/medical-and-dental-intakes/
Our population has risen by about 15 per cent this century so a similar increase in medical students looks proportionate.
Brexit is clearly only for (a part of) England. No-one genuinely caring about the Union would support it - DUP take note.
The Protocol was never something the UK wanted, it was something the EU wanted and they thought they had it in the Backstop they'd compelled May to sign up for. That they negotiated away the backstop to be replaced with the risible Protocol was a negotiating masterclass by the UK and only because we were prepared to walk away, as you quoted.
And then the EU are in no position to make the Protocol be implemented. The one thing they wanted and negotiated hard on, they left us holding all the cards so we could just refuse to implement it. Oh dear, what a shame.
That's a success not a failure on the UK's part. Its a failure on the EU's.
Saying "we fucked this up and we want to fix it" is critical for our relationships with these key partners. The remaining Tory voters can have their stupidity weaponised by the Tories trying to blame the Biden administration for taking a hard line over the GFA, but that's an increasingly shallow gene pool to fish for votes in.
TLDR, we spend almost nothing on capital infrastructure, and if there is a single metric managed for in the NHS it is maximum throughput with the lowest amount of beds.
Treasury to blame as per.
And I do not think this should be controversial. If it were announced that your daughter's school were to double in size, surely you would expect there to be twice as many pupils at the school, not twice as many in each year which would mean the school being seven times as big.
Also, New Thread.
https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2020/03/30/chris-cook-coronavirus-nhs-at-capacity/
Aston - 2015
Buckingham - 2015
Preston - 2015
Anglian Ruskin -2018
Lincoln - 2018
Edge Hill - 2019
Sunderland - 2019
Kent & Canterbury Christchurch - 2020
Brunel - 2021 (Overseas students only at present)
Ulster - 2021
Numbers of students starting medical course have been increasing over the past years as well.
2017/18 - 7767
2018/19 - 8615
2019/20 - 9450
2020/21 - 10461
2021/22 - 10653
2022/23 - 9818 (initial)
I recall being told that increasing the training to 100% of requirements would be gammon, though.
It was apparent from the start, before any vaccines. that it was unusually fast mutating for a coronavirus.
Vaccines have simply driven the evolution within a tighter set of constraints within the vaccinated population - and note there is still a large unvaccinated population globally.
Apart from the same fact that there is a world wide shortage of doctors. Which will get worse, on current projections.
Another point is that medicals staff from aboard tend to come from poorer countries, so their initial expectation of pay is lower. Which is handy if you are trying to keep pay down.
You keep saying 'we' when what you mean is a hard core of sovereignty absolutists of which you are a part.
Russian propagandists aim to convince the viewers that "the Soviet miracle" & the expansionist glory of the Motherland are more important than life, which is "overrated." They want new maps—or rather "a globe of Russia," because its borders end...nowhere.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1610151271356600320
Here’s the video in which Vote Leave promised shorter A&E waiting times once we left the EU.
https://mobile.twitter.com/WritesBright/status/1609980791936745472
So in that demographic, ‘we’ is Philip Thompson, Casino Royale, and the guy that does the night shift for “Radio Broadmoor”.
Travellers from China who test positive in UK for Covid will not need to isolate
Transport secretary says infection data collected at airport ‘for surveillance purposes’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/03/travellers-from-china-who-test-positive-in-uk-for-covid-will-not-need-to-isolate
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jan/03/rally-driver-and-youtube-star-ken-block-dies-in-snowmobile-accident
And Jeremy Renner seems to have been run over by his own snowclearer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64149476