Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the measles outbreak continues YouGov finds that UKIP vo
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the measles outbreak continues YouGov finds that UKIP voters are much more likely to believe that MMR is unsafe
Chart from YouGov data on how Ukip voters are far more likely than others to believe that MMR vaccine is unsafe. twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
More seriously it does suggest a disconnection with reality. To some of us, of course, that's evident, anyway!
Other moves in YouGov:
Coalition working well together net: -26 (+8)
Good for people like you: -30 (+12)
Handling Economy well: -30 (+5)
Also stuff on school lunches, MMR, politeness (UKIP least classist, in general but don't like the Upper class) and crying in public perfectly ok - even if its the Chancellor (net) +70.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/zbqwj81wqu/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-190413.pdf
Although this is the 4th "bottom of the range" poll in a week, worth remembering that the average Labour lead of +10 in March is sustained April to date (actually +9.7, but still well within moe Con: 26.5 - 30 - 33.5, Lab 37.2 - 40 - 42.8). You need to go back to Jan/Feb to see Labour numbers outside this(45) and Con (35)- but then the gap was also ~10 - so both have drifted slightly lower. We have also seen runs of "narrowing leads" swiftly reversed
24.
18-24: 78
25-39: 81
40-59: 85
60+ 92
Some information here:
http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/vaccine-scares-mistakes-fraud-and-media-scaremongering/
Re; Opinium Poll:
Cons 29/LAB 35/ LD 8/ UKIP 17
Which, if any, of the following would you say you trust more to handle the economy?
DC&GO/EM&EB/NC&VC/ NONE/DK
Con Voters: 83/1/1/8/7
LAB Voters: 4/64/4/21/7
LD Voters: 15/7/56/14/8
In absolute numbers its twice as many as UKIP, and given the demographics, likely to be significantly more than that.
Could the lower Labour numbers be down to Leo Blair?
http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/
" Leo Blair was a bigger player than Wakefield, and it all happened much later than you think."
Ed Miliband last night faced an angry backlash from Labour MPs after it emerged he held a secret meeting with George Galloway, who was thrown out of the party ten years ago.
The Labour leader invited Respect MP Mr Galloway to his Commons office, where they had a ‘cordial and friendly conversation’ for nearly an hour.
It has sparked rumours that Mr Miliband is considering allowing Mr Galloway to rejoin the party.
But Labour MPs warned their leader against taking such action. ‘Galloway is a traitor,’ said one. ‘It’s naive lunacy for the leader to have anything to do with him. I thought he wanted to get rid of the Red Ed tag. He will rejoin Labour over my dead body.’
Mr Galloway was expelled from Labour after he was accused of inciting foreign forces to rise up against British troops invading Iraq – military action he strongly opposed. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312375/Naive-Miliband-attacked-party-secret-George-Galloway-meeting.html
YouGov
Leaders Well/Badly: Now/Prev/Diff:
DC: -16/-24/(+8): 7% of Cons say badly
EM: -29/-25/(-4): 30% of LAB say badly
NC: -48/-54/(+6): 33% of LD say badly
Do you think each of the following would make
a better or worse Conservative leader and Prime
Minister than David Cameron?
Better/Worse/Neither/DK
GO: 3/53/23/21
MG: 5/42/32/22
WH: 23/28/29/20
TM: 13/36/26/25
N Farage: 12/36/19/33
Generally speaking, do you think children these
days eat more healthily than twenty years ago,
less healthily than twenty years ago or about
the same?
More/Less/Same/DK
13/65/16/7
Would you support or oppose making all
schools teach children basic cookery before
they left school?
Support/Oppose/DK:
87/6/7
Paul Goodman and James Kirkup both come to the conclusion (separately?) that the odds of a leadership challenge are lengthening and that David Cameron is newly reinvigorated:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10006972/Why-Tories-must-win-the-hearts-and-minds-of-Bolton.html
"He [David Cameron] lingered in the Chamber while Tory MPs paid their respects, and moved on afterwards to the Strangers’ Bar in the Commons to mingle with backbenchers. Eyebrow-raisingly, he was seen deep in amicable conversation with Mark Pritchard, the independent-minded backbencher who once told a startled Commons that Downing Street had attempted to silence him. Next week, Mr Cameron will hope to meet this happy mood again when he mixes with MPs at a party to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the 1922 Committee, the body that represents them.
Only a few weeks ago, the odds of a post-local elections leadership challenge to Mr Cameron were shortening. In the wake both of Lady Thatcher’s funeral and Labour’s incoherent muddle over welfare reform, they have lengthened again, though a strong Ukip showing in the elections is sure to stir Conservative MPs up again.
But more than manners and tact are shoring up the Prime Minister’s position. There is a sense within the Tory tribe that their leader is at last trying to be the heir not to a Labour prime minister, but to the Conservative one whose funeral rites he helped to lead."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10005897/Does-David-Cameron-have-the-stomach-for-a-fight-like-Lady-Thatcher-did.html
"But now, while the task before him remains mountainous, Mr Cameron has less to fear from his colleagues. The mood among Tory MPs is lifting. Some have been cheered by his willingness to go into battle on welfare, and revel in the resultant Labour disarray; others believe that the UK economy is finally about to turn the corner (though one old hand warns against “drinking the Treasury Kool-Aid”).
Whatever the reasons Tories are finding to be cheerful, more of them are willing to give Mr Cameron the benefit of the doubt for now. That will ease the pain of what will be miserable results in next month’s local elections.
One Conservative who has discussed electoral strategy with Mr Cameron in recent days detects a new spirit in him, a rekindling of the optimism that once defined him. “It might be that he’s had a good couple of weeks with welfare and the rest, so he’s feeling a bit more like himself,” that Conservative says. “Or it might be that with Margaret gone he feels a shadow has been lifted. Either way, he’s looking a lot more up for it than he was.” "
I've just started a two-week "holiday" canvassing for the County in Broxtowe. I can't remember an election with less public awareness. The impression so far is that Labour will do quite well because more people feel we're the least rubbish party, but turnout will be pretty low. UKIP should do well partly as a result, as Mike noted on a previous thread.
Con: 1
Lab: 15
Lib Dem: 15
UKIP: 28
"But the biggest public health disaster of all – which everyone misses – was a sweet little baby called Leo. In December 2001 the Blairs were asked if their infant son had been given the MMR vaccine, and refused to answer, on the grounds that this would invade their child’s right to privacy. This stance was not entirely unreasonable, but its validity was somewhat undermined by Cherie Blair when she chose to reveal Leo’s vaccination history, in the process of promoting her autobiography, and also described the specific act of sexual intercourse which conceived him.
And while most other politicians were happy to clarify whether their children had had the vaccine, you could see how people might believe the Blairs were the kind of family not to have their children immunised: essentially, they had surrounded themselves with health cranks. There was Cherie Blair’s closest friend and aide, Carole Caplin, a new age guru and “life coach”. Cherie was reported to visit Carole’s mum, Sylvia Caplin, a spiritual guru who was viciously anti-MMR (“for a tiny child, the MMR is a ridiculous thing to do. It has definitely caused autism,” she told the Mail). They were also prominently associated with a new age healer called Jack Temple, who offered crystal dowsing, homeopathy, neolithic-circle healing in his suburban back garden, and some special breastfeeding technique which he reckoned made vaccines unnecessary."
I've always said the Labour lead was soft and a little while ago posted that it would gradually slide the closer we get to the election, and it is beginning to happen.
Overall there is extremely high support for vaccination, and we need to keep perspective. A single person has died apparently of measles. Yet we have calls for the compulsory medication of the population with the sanction of not permitting schooling if they refuse. It is like the dangerous dogs act repeated, a few incidents and knee jerk calls for legislation. Sometimes I despair of the UK.
Cameron went on the record in 2006 on MMR:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4758062.stm
For me it is most analogous to compulsary organ harvesting (vs a voluntary donor scheme). I believe that you "own" your own body and you (or in the case of a minor your parents) have the right to decide what gets done to it.
For the state to have the right to insist on compulsory vaccination would not just be an extension of its power, but would be a fundamental reversal of the relationship between the state and the individual.
(and p.s., are you sure they insist on vaccination in the US? I thought it was that they wouldn't allow you to attend a state nursery school without proof of vaccination. If that's the case it is a subtle but philosophically critical distinction)
I see that the UKIP are nutters brigade is holding sway this morning. Perhaps that will give them solace of what is about to happen in the coming weeks. I wonder how that MMR question was framed by YouGov, also the number of UKIP supporters in relation to the other parties?
I see he is still being partial in his reading of poll results - picking issues that support his view whilst ignoring others.
In this case the one I find most amusing is that he picks up on UKIP supporters' (incorrect in my opinion) beliefs but ignores their actions.
If you actually look at the Yougov results you will see that although 10% of UKIP supporters believe that the MMR jab may be "not very safe or unsafe" (not as Mike claims all 10% believing it is unsafe) 100% of them with children of the suitable age have had them vaccinated through the MMR jab. They have expressed their doubts but in the end have done the right thing and followed the professional advice.
By contrast only 2% of declared Lib Dem supporters believe their might be an issue with the MMR and yet 25% of them have not had their children vaccinated through the MMR.
Should not the real story here be that when it comes to the crunch the UKIP supporters might be sceptical but will do the right thing by their children whilst Lib Dem supporters are happy to believe the authorities but are too lazy, thoughtless or unreasonable to get their children protected against something they know to be a threat both to their own offspring and the wider population.
So who exactly is being unreasonable and reckless here?
I'm with you on organ donation - if your own body doesn't belong to you...
"He said: "My children have had the MMR vaccine and the new one will have it.
"But I think the NHS needs to look out very carefully. If the amount of children having the injection falls, it has to look at how to encourage parents and that might mean single jabs."
The MMR crisis blew up on Labour's watch and its Labour voters children potentially at greatest risk - what should be done?
Welcome back, Mr. Tyndall. That's a useful observation.
Out of interest, has anyone see research on a correlation between non-vaccination and home-schooling? I suspect there may be a correlation, although not clear if direct causality vs the same root cause.
Well said. And hope you post again.
View of a sunset from within a wave...
https://twitter.com/ThatsEarth/status/325876580704468992/photo/1
What depresses me is that most people on here only care about their own party and not the good of the country.
Stories from 2002:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2088426.stm
And 2009:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8078500.stm
"The BBC has learned, however, through a freedom of information request that the strategic health authority in London asked the government if it could introduce compulsory vaccination.
Specifically the SHA asked about the "feasibility of requiring an immunisation certificate for measles before children go to school."
In documents seen by the BBC, the Department of Health acknowledges that immunisation rates in London are consistently lower than the rest of the country.
But officials said: "Our strategy is to maintain a voluntary immunisation system and invest efforts in educating parents about the benefits of vaccination and dispelling 'myths' about vaccine safety."
"But I think the NHS needs to look out very carefully. If the amount of children having the injection falls, it has to look at how to encourage parents and that might mean single jabs."
Which (as a non-medically trained person) makes sense. There are issues with single jabs, but surely having the single jabs is better than having nothing if you want to try and maintain herd immunity? And he did not promise to do it: he said it (and possibly other measures) needs examining.
Hardly mad.
And it's far better than Blair's approach. I know Nick Palmer'll disagree with me, but with the Blairs' track record with loony health cranks, they should have said.
It's called leadership.
If a Jehovah's Witness can prevent a blood transfusion for their offspring because of religious beliefs - I can't begin to imagine the fuss that compulsory vaccination would generate... in a substantially bigger % of the population.
Both these are advantages for the state, but not for the individual.
The disadvantage for the individual is the risk of viral overload (injecting a young child with a 3vLa multivalent). The safety evidence is not statistically significant between the two, although there is evidence to suggest that single vaccines have better tolerability. And, to my mind, the fact that they are given at a later point (15 months vs. 12/13 months) is important because how fast the child is developing at that point.
The most important thing is that the kids get vaccinated. Beyond that, the attitude where the state says 'This is better for me, I don't care if it is less good for you, you will do it' is one I don't like. Making sure that single vaccines are available and then requiring a vaccination certificate to attend school may be a good way forward.
Miliband's troubles lead our newslinks. Woe, woe and thrice woe! bit.ly/17bosBf
I must watch Up Pompeii again - haven't seen it in a decade or two, hope it hasn't dated too much.
And, no, there is a possible difference in the side effect profile of the MMR vs single vaccines
"Making sure that single vaccines are available and then requiring a vaccination certificate to attend school may be a good way forward"
I'm still uncomfortable with the notion of excluding children who aren't vaccinated - I've no problem with inoculation myself and a firm believer in it - but there are parents who will be concerned and forcing them to comply or home-school is coercive.
Is the state there to serve the people? Or vice versa?
The difference between the the results on MMR vs. single vaccines are "clinically significant" but not "statistically significant". That puts them in the category of something that researchers may wish to consider (and perform further work on).
If the trend was statistically significant the MMR vaccine would not be licenced.
Hence why I am always so cautious: it is a "possible" risk or a "potential link".
To give a baroque example, when my mother grew up in Danzig and moved in classy circles, she said the family impression was that the old German Junckers (rural aristos, basically) were generally awkward, arrogant and indeed pig-headed. But it made them resistant to the Nazis, who they regardless as a bunch of ranting plebs, and they were stiff-necked enough to express their dislike and eventually get executed for it. So being hard to convince of current orthodoxy isn't always a bad thing. But sometimes it is (I'd see resistance to vaccination as one such case).
Anyway, do keep posting. We need to keep pb multicultural. :-)
As for your second paragraph: there was a demand for single jabs. The parents may have been foolish, but better to get as much protection as possible rather than none. (If someone with medical qualifications can correct me, thanks).
That does not mean that the push should not have been towards MMR. But that battle was lost. Perhaps the Welsh outbreak might mean that, long-term, we win the war as vaccination levels increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumps_vaccine
If a larger proportion of con/lab/lib voters believed in and lived their lives whilst indoctrinating their children in something that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny such as Christianity or Islam would they also be disparaged as fruitcakes and looneys?
What's the point of allowing a BOO candidate a free run when Cameron either won't have the chance of having a referendum, will duck the issue once again and will campaign against it even if he does have one?
In a joint article with Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, the Chancellor claims that pro-independence campaigners are “tying themselves in knots” by calling for independence within a monetary union with the UK.
Scotland’s leading economic development body will also enter the row over Scotland’s use of the pound in the event of independence this week by declaring that the UK was likely to place curbs on the freedom of the new country to act as it pleases.
The Scottish Council for Development and Industry concludes in a new paper that London could be expected to limit Scotland’s room for manoeuvre.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-george-osborne-attacks-snp-1-2903994
Interestingly I believe that dead people are the states property, in that they belong to the coroner until released back to the family or undertaker. Compulsory harvesting of organs does strike me as a very dangerous step, not least because of the hysteria generated by the Alder Hey pathology scandal.
My kids had MMR at the height of the furore, but I know many who did not, often strong willed educated people with rather cranky ideas on health.
My favourite anecdote was from south London, where a doctor was offering single vaccines for MMR. Clearly more inconvenient for the mumsnet crowd, but if you asked him nicely he would give the single vaccines at the same time to save visits!
You could not make it up etc.
As I have said passim, the public (and I include myself) are terrible at risk analysis and assessment. If the media say that there is a slight risk, then many people will see the 'risk' bit, and not the slight. Few will dive into the article, or even into the professional literature, to work out what the 'slight' bit actually means.
I wouldn't trust myself to read detailed medical literature and come up with a firm conclusion; I could probably only understand the abstracts, if at all. It's not my area of expertise, and much of the terminology is obtuse.
In the same way, I wouldn't expect the layman to understand RFC 2397.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2397
North Korea is alive and well for him...
Is there any data about whether UKIPpers tend to be part of that declining minority? I'm guessing the age profiles match up pretty well.
"Members of the Royal Court were left feeling imperceptibly satisfied today after agreeing an unprecedented remuneration settlement with a homeopathic practitioner who owes £168,000 in unpaid income tax.
Jean Samson, 52, of ‘The Hollows’, Les Fououes, gave assurance that the outstanding arrears, accumulated from her practice’s earnings over just four years, will be, “Fully paid at a moment that will be difficult to pin down, except that one day everything will probably seem just fine.”
http://www.gsyfutu.com/?p=2680
I quite agree. I assume this will be dealt with in further drafting but TBH, the rare cases of being killed by a dog and in someone else's home are rarer than death by falling off your own ladders or being trampled by a cow.
There is no need for legislation - its kneejerk legislation of the worst kind.
Whilst I understand the idea of state interference, if people pass the measles disease on I see it no different to AIDS in that people should be forced to admit they have it if they know it to be the case.
"I will follow the scientific advice."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20002094
"Is there any data about whether UKIPpers tend to be part of that declining minority? I'm guessing the age profiles match up pretty well.
You've guessed wrong again! LOL
Read and weep Carlotta.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/smile-and-the-world-smiles-with-you/
'Sexual volcano'? Hahahahaha! That's the best thing ever. *pleasant memories of sexual volcanoes I have known*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312267/Race-row-Tory-town-tells-Gove-super-head-We-dont-want-inner-city-pupils-here.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Cameron: +85/+50
Miliband: +31/+22
Clegg: +30/-33
But hey, lets discuss a detail of UKIP voters attitude to MMR (10%) that is overwhelmed by MOE (24%)......
https://twitter.com/Khyberman/status/325783747410673667/photo/1
I see Wings over Scotland have mounted a robust rebuttal on the currency question....not.....
They Tory stooges too?
This represents an eightfold drop on the 134,000 prescriptions recorded in 2000, which cost £831,000."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8729588/NHS-spending-on-homeopathy-prescriptions-falls-to-122000.html
You think this is as important as Labour's mis-management of MMR?
The Conservatives biggest losses in this cycle of local elections since 1990 (County+) was 486 in 1993, that has to be the bench mark for these local elections.
(The headmaster's idea is brilliant and the locals should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.)
Cameron: -34
Miliband: -35
Clegg: -33
And great to see Richard Tyndall back, I hope you hang around for a while.
There is an element of desperation about this and the desperation comes from the failure to grasp the deeply unpleasant nettle of publically owned and chronically undercapitalised banks left by the last government. I really have little doubt that if RBS and LLoyds had been sorted out into good and bad banks 3 years ago we would be enjoying better growth now.
There is a story of a recommendation to this effect in the ST today by a committee of MPs. Despite this I have no doubt it really should be a priority. I am concerned that uncle Vince has been a bit of a block on this as have the enormous vested interests of our bankster community. George should be asking himself what would Maggie have done faced with such intransigence?
In England, London had the lowest uptake at just 86.1%.
The highest coverage was in Thames Valley, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight where 93.5% of children were vaccinated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20510525
I'm discussing attitude as shown in today's YouGov.....
*on which note I hear sounds of stirring and the sun's out.
Put shortly, although he thinks that very low wages have helped increase employment he also thinks that you can have too much of a good thing and the consequential lack of demand is now inhibiting growth. The problem remains in the private sector where wages continue to grow much more slowly than in the public sector:
"Total private sector pay in February was 0.5% down on a year earlier. Though this was dragged down by lower bonuses, the picture for regular pay, up just 0.6%, was barely better. Public sector pay, up 1.1%, was stronger"
I wonder how many interviewers speaking to militant union bosses discussing the latest strike will be presented with these figures. My money is on not enough.
Anyway, David Smith suggests that what we really need is 3% wage increases for employees of larger companies who are in general sitting on quite a lot of cash. This is a bit more targetted than simply arguing for the living wage which is thought to have a bigger impact on marginal employment. Ironically, the almost non existent power of unions in the private sector makes this more difficult to achieve.
Mrs T was a huge chum of the City and it was reciprocated.
I would agree with your first point Southam. The GDP figures this week will be very important for the tone of news coverage for the next 3 months.
I disagree with your second point. Mrs T demolished existing restrictive practices in the City removing many of the monopolies that bedevilled investment in the UK. This resulted in enormous growth which combined with the Docklands opportunities resulted in the City we see today but Maggie never saw a vested interest that she did not want to challenge and I think she would have found the degree of protection that our banksters get today as offensive as subsidising the production of coal no one wanted.
I wonder if there's also a perhaps counter-intuitive response to the performance of the economy. When things go well, people want Labour to spend. When things go poorly, they want the Conservatives to cut and set things right.
This is a much more intractable problem and there are real limits to which house prices can increase on the back of additional finance when we still have falling real earnings.
Not many examples of a similar nature ( fluoride in water maybe? Motorcycle helmets?) I'd be on the side of, but this one does seem clear enough.