See Guardian article re Martin Lewis's concerns about the Student Loans Repayment website.
What is really breathtaking is that the standard of education has fallen to such an extent that graduates are unable to understand how the system works.
And it's a very simple system - certainly when I went to school I think the average 11 or 12 year old would have been expected to understand it after having it explained to them for a few minutes.
Am I cynical for thinking that any journalist worth their salt will therefore keep looking until they find graduates who are confused? Or at least will say they are?
TL;DR summary: Overall the BLM protests had no statistically significant impact on the spread of COVID19. Where large protests existed they actually had a slightly negative effect on the spread (ie it reduced the spread of COVID19) but it wasn't negative enough to be statistically significant.
While the protesters were out and about and where more likely to catch the virus as a result . . . due to the protests non-protesters were more likely to stay at home because of the protests, less likely to be out and about due to the protests. So because more non-protesters were staying at home to stay away from the protests (and not just the virus) it counters the effect of the protesters themselves catching it.
Fascinating and counter intuitive. I find it interesting the overall effect is negative even if it wasn't sufficient to be statistically significant.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
go on you now you want to explain it
Me too please ...
Allow me...
The RMS voltage is the equivalent steady DC voltage that would give the same power output from a resistive circuit (such as a simple heating element) as is obtainable from the AC voltage.
PS Note that the UK output is actually 240V AC RMS. The EU introduced a new 'harmonised' 230V standard because some countries use 220V and the UK uses 240V. The tolerance permitted is 10%, so both 220V and 240V fall inside this new standard. The output remained exactly the same in all affected countries.
My understanding is that the UK (and continental Europe) are moving towards 230V.
So, while 230V +/- 10V was true at inception, it is no longer the case.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
Also Peckham, New Cross and Greenwich in the SE (my neck of the woods). Close enough to enjoy the centre, plenty of green space and parks with nice views, friendly neighbours, good housing, lots going on locally, nice vibes. It is expensive compared to what you can buy elsewhere (I saw a stunning eight bedroom house with a lake in a lovely part of Cornwall that I know and love for sale for less than our house in London is (was?!) worth). But if you can afford to live here it is brilliant.
So offer your luxury pad in Peckham as a swap to the family with the Cornish house with a lake and see how you get on?
I imagine they like living there just like I like living here. It may surprise you, but people like different things.
You’d be able to move there without acquiring a sense of humour, whereas I doubt that the reverse is true
Well they're the ones moving! Maybe they're bored of Rotary Club lunches and dogging or whatever it is that country-dwellers do to fill their days and have decided to try their luck in the People's Republic of Lewisham. We welcome all sorts here.
Rotary Club is a charitable organisation and is as active in urban areas as it is in rural ones. My one supports a local food bank in suburban South London.
I wasn't expecting the Rotary Club reference to be the bit that people objected to... Apologies, it was a cheap jibe, I know they do great work.
TL;DR summary: Overall the BLM protests had no statistically significant impact on the spread of COVID19. Where large protests existed they actually had a slightly negative effect on the spread (ie it reduced the spread of COVID19) but it wasn't negative enough to be statistically significant.
While the protesters were out and about and where more likely to catch the virus as a result . . . due to the protests non-protesters were more likely to stay at home because of the protests, less likely to be out and about due to the protests. So because more non-protesters were staying at home to stay away from the protests (and not just the virus) it counters the effect of the protesters themselves catching it.
Fascinating and counter intuitive. I find it interesting the overall effect is negative even if it wasn't sufficient to be statistically significant.
Logically then a few riots would be good for stopping the virus because most people would stay indoors.
See Guardian article re Martin Lewis's concerns about the Student Loans Repayment website.
What is really breathtaking is that the standard of education has fallen to such an extent that graduates are unable to understand how the system works.
And it's a very simple system - certainly when I went to school I think the average 11 or 12 year old would have been expected to understand it after having it explained to them for a few minutes.
Am I cynical for thinking that any journalist worth their salt will therefore keep looking until they find graduates who are confused? Or at least will say they are?
Or until they find a three-legged student?
Into the home stretch now on that loan repayment, 6 months and about £20 to go.
TL;DR summary: Overall the BLM protests had no statistically significant impact on the spread of COVID19. Where large protests existed they actually had a slightly negative effect on the spread (ie it reduced the spread of COVID19) but it wasn't negative enough to be statistically significant.
While the protesters were out and about and where more likely to catch the virus as a result . . . due to the protests non-protesters were more likely to stay at home because of the protests, less likely to be out and about due to the protests. So because more non-protesters were staying at home to stay away from the protests (and not just the virus) it counters the effect of the protesters themselves catching it.
Fascinating and counter intuitive. I find it interesting the overall effect is negative even if it wasn't sufficient to be statistically significant.
Indeed. Though of course the virus appears to be much less transmissible outdoors, and many protestors (vitrtually all of them in yesterday's reported Portland protest) wore masks.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
Also Peckham, New Cross and Greenwich in the SE (my neck of the woods). Close enough to enjoy the centre, plenty of green space and parks with nice views, friendly neighbours, good housing, lots going on locally, nice vibes. It is expensive compared to what you can buy elsewhere (I saw a stunning eight bedroom house with a lake in a lovely part of Cornwall that I know and love for sale for less than our house in London is (was?!) worth). But if you can afford to live here it is brilliant.
So offer your luxury pad in Peckham as a swap to the family with the Cornish house with a lake and see how you get on?
I imagine they like living there just like I like living here. It may surprise you, but people like different things.
You’d be able to move there without acquiring a sense of humour, whereas I doubt that the reverse is true
Well they're the ones moving! Maybe they're bored of Rotary Club lunches and dogging or whatever it is that country-dwellers do to fill their days and have decided to try their luck in the People's Republic of Lewisham. We welcome all sorts here.
Rotary Club is a charitable organisation and is as active in urban areas as it is in rural ones. My one supports a local food bank in suburban South London.
I wasn't expecting the Rotary Club reference to be the bit that people objected to... Apologies, it was a cheap jibe, I know they do great work.
I never joined Rotary but many of my colleagues and friends did and in the process raised tens of thousands for local charities including the hospice, RNLI, childrens homes and physically helped across a wide range of the charity sector including food banks
See Guardian article re Martin Lewis's concerns about the Student Loans Repayment website.
What is really breathtaking is that the standard of education has fallen to such an extent that graduates are unable to understand how the system works.
And it's a very simple system - certainly when I went to school I think the average 11 or 12 year old would have been expected to understand it after having it explained to them for a few minutes.
Do you really believe the average 12 year old can work out whether it's better to pay it off quickly, rather than pay it off later, based on student loan inflation rates, salary inflation, potential promotions, possible career changes or unemployment over a 30 year period?
What about changes to the system, or even a future write off of student debts?
Martin Lewis is saying that the current site highlights the total outstanding sum, and pushes the quick repayment methods, when the truth is most people won't pay the full outstanding sum, and the quick repayment methods will leave the majority worse off. Seems like a reasonable argument to me.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
Also Peckham, New Cross and Greenwich in the SE (my neck of the woods). Close enough to enjoy the centre, plenty of green space and parks with nice views, friendly neighbours, good housing, lots going on locally, nice vibes. It is expensive compared to what you can buy elsewhere (I saw a stunning eight bedroom house with a lake in a lovely part of Cornwall that I know and love for sale for less than our house in London is (was?!) worth). But if you can afford to live here it is brilliant.
So offer your luxury pad in Peckham as a swap to the family with the Cornish house with a lake and see how you get on?
I imagine they like living there just like I like living here. It may surprise you, but people like different things.
You’d be able to move there without acquiring a sense of humour, whereas I doubt that the reverse is true
Well they're the ones moving! Maybe they're bored of Rotary Club lunches and dogging or whatever it is that country-dwellers do to fill their days and have decided to try their luck in the People's Republic of Lewisham. We welcome all sorts here.
Rotary Club is a charitable organisation and is as active in urban areas as it is in rural ones. My one supports a local food bank in suburban South London.
I wasn't expecting the Rotary Club reference to be the bit that people objected to... Apologies, it was a cheap jibe, I know they do great work.
No worries, I know that Rotary can have bit of a reputation as an extension of the 19th hole so I just like to try and correct that when I can.
TL;DR summary: Overall the BLM protests had no statistically significant impact on the spread of COVID19. Where large protests existed they actually had a slightly negative effect on the spread (ie it reduced the spread of COVID19) but it wasn't negative enough to be statistically significant.
While the protesters were out and about and where more likely to catch the virus as a result . . . due to the protests non-protesters were more likely to stay at home because of the protests, less likely to be out and about due to the protests. So because more non-protesters were staying at home to stay away from the protests (and not just the virus) it counters the effect of the protesters themselves catching it.
Fascinating and counter intuitive. I find it interesting the overall effect is negative even if it wasn't sufficient to be statistically significant.
Protestors out protesting caught the virus.
Those staying at home to avoid the protests didn't catch the virus.
I'm working atm, can anyone do a tl;dr for the Lancet paper?
'Now we can confidently progress to PIII, to see if it's actually effective in preventing infection'.
That sounds very positive, though we already knew that because PIII trials are already taking place in Brazil.
True - but this data was available much earlier to those who wrote the paper, and we didn't know how confident they were until now.
A couple of interesting points - ~They suggest setting up a central laboratory to compare data between vaccines, as the three different assays they used for this trial came up with very different numbers for neutralising antibodies. Comparing like with like is essential.
~The choice of a single dose, rather than prime and booster shots, was one of expedience in the service of delivering it in the shortest time possible: ...A dose of 5×1010 viral particles was chosen on the basis of our previous experience with ChAdOx1 MERS, where despite increased reactogenicity, a dose–response relationship with neutralising antibodies was observed. The protocol was written when the pandemic was accelerating in the UK and a single higher dose was chosen to provide the highest chance of rapid induction of neutralising antibody.
See Guardian article re Martin Lewis's concerns about the Student Loans Repayment website.
What is really breathtaking is that the standard of education has fallen to such an extent that graduates are unable to understand how the system works.
And it's a very simple system - certainly when I went to school I think the average 11 or 12 year old would have been expected to understand it after having it explained to them for a few minutes.
Do you really believe the average 12 year old can work out whether it's better to pay it off quickly, rather than pay it off later, based on student loan inflation rates, salary inflation, potential promotions, possible career changes or unemployment over a 30 year period?
What about changes to the system, or even a future write off of student debts?
Martin Lewis is saying that the current site highlights the total outstanding sum, and pushes the quick repayment methods, when the truth is most people won't pay the full outstanding sum, and the quick repayment methods will leave the majority worse off. Seems like a reasonable argument to me.
Yes. I have a small outstanding student loan (from an aborted teacher training course) and a PhD in physics, and I'm still unsure as to whether it makes sense to pay it off or not. I'd better ask a 12 year old.
TL;DR summary: Overall the BLM protests had no statistically significant impact on the spread of COVID19. Where large protests existed they actually had a slightly negative effect on the spread (ie it reduced the spread of COVID19) but it wasn't negative enough to be statistically significant.
While the protesters were out and about and where more likely to catch the virus as a result . . . due to the protests non-protesters were more likely to stay at home because of the protests, less likely to be out and about due to the protests. So because more non-protesters were staying at home to stay away from the protests (and not just the virus) it counters the effect of the protesters themselves catching it.
Fascinating and counter intuitive. I find it interesting the overall effect is negative even if it wasn't sufficient to be statistically significant.
Protestors out protesting caught the virus.
Those staying at home to avoid the protests didn't catch the virus.
Er....result?
But more people stayed at home because of the protests so yes net result is that the protests didn't increase numbers (they may have marginally reduced them but not statistically significantly).
It explains at least one "dog that hasn't barked" though.
I wonder if this graph might fall into the category of "accurate but misleading", given that, for example, a constant death rate would appear as a falling graph due to the delays in reporting.
Even for the situation he had a pretty lame response, you'd think the ambassador would be better able to make a ballsy, confident seeming denial and dismissal.
Mr. kle4, possible he has a very narrow definition of what he's instructed to say from his bosses. And one would suspect straying from that would not have positive consequences for his career.
Mr. kle4, possible he has a very narrow definition of what he's instructed to say from his bosses. And one would suspect straying from that would not have positive consequences for his career.
I'm sure he did, but the chinese authorities are not shy about talking aggressive nonsense - they profess utter bafflement at why anyone is interested in Hong Kong for a start, despite their own agreements regarding the place - and I'm surprised they would not have ok'd a ballsier line.
See Guardian article re Martin Lewis's concerns about the Student Loans Repayment website.
What is really breathtaking is that the standard of education has fallen to such an extent that graduates are unable to understand how the system works.
And it's a very simple system - certainly when I went to school I think the average 11 or 12 year old would have been expected to understand it after having it explained to them for a few minutes.
Do you really believe the average 12 year old can work out whether it's better to pay it off quickly, rather than pay it off later, based on student loan inflation rates, salary inflation, potential promotions, possible career changes or unemployment over a 30 year period?
What about changes to the system, or even a future write off of student debts?
Martin Lewis is saying that the current site highlights the total outstanding sum, and pushes the quick repayment methods, when the truth is most people won't pay the full outstanding sum, and the quick repayment methods will leave the majority worse off. Seems like a reasonable argument to me.
Yes. I have a small outstanding student loan (from an aborted teacher training course) and a PhD in physics, and I'm still unsure as to whether it makes sense to pay it off or not. I'd better ask a 12 year old.
You could do the calculation quite easily in Excel.
See Guardian article re Martin Lewis's concerns about the Student Loans Repayment website.
What is really breathtaking is that the standard of education has fallen to such an extent that graduates are unable to understand how the system works.
And it's a very simple system - certainly when I went to school I think the average 11 or 12 year old would have been expected to understand it after having it explained to them for a few minutes.
Do you really believe the average 12 year old can work out whether it's better to pay it off quickly, rather than pay it off later, based on student loan inflation rates, salary inflation, potential promotions, possible career changes or unemployment over a 30 year period?
What about changes to the system, or even a future write off of student debts?
Martin Lewis is saying that the current site highlights the total outstanding sum, and pushes the quick repayment methods, when the truth is most people won't pay the full outstanding sum, and the quick repayment methods will leave the majority worse off. Seems like a reasonable argument to me.
Yes. I have a small outstanding student loan (from an aborted teacher training course) and a PhD in physics, and I'm still unsure as to whether it makes sense to pay it off or not. I'd better ask a 12 year old.
You could do the calculation quite easily in Excel.
What is the Excel function for my salary in 10 years time please?
See Guardian article re Martin Lewis's concerns about the Student Loans Repayment website.
What is really breathtaking is that the standard of education has fallen to such an extent that graduates are unable to understand how the system works.
And it's a very simple system - certainly when I went to school I think the average 11 or 12 year old would have been expected to understand it after having it explained to them for a few minutes.
Do you really believe the average 12 year old can work out whether it's better to pay it off quickly, rather than pay it off later, based on student loan inflation rates, salary inflation, potential promotions, possible career changes or unemployment over a 30 year period?
What about changes to the system, or even a future write off of student debts?
Martin Lewis is saying that the current site highlights the total outstanding sum, and pushes the quick repayment methods, when the truth is most people won't pay the full outstanding sum, and the quick repayment methods will leave the majority worse off. Seems like a reasonable argument to me.
Yes. I have a small outstanding student loan (from an aborted teacher training course) and a PhD in physics, and I'm still unsure as to whether it makes sense to pay it off or not. I'd better ask a 12 year old.
You could do the calculation quite easily in Excel.
Not sure about that, it's harder to know for these new loans of nominally relatively vast sums. Lots depends on future earnings which are unknowable. Previous system where the debt was no more than about 20k was simple to work out I'll grant.
Re: the vaccine trial - it would be a supreme irony if, after everything that's gone wrong in England during the pandemic, the solution to it (or, at any rate, a key part of it) came from England as well. Let's hope that the news continues to be positive.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
go on you now you want to explain it
Me too please ...
Allow me...
The RMS voltage is the equivalent steady DC voltage that would give the same power output from a resistive circuit (such as a simple heating element) as is obtainable from the AC voltage.
PS Note that the UK output is actually 240V AC RMS. The EU introduced a new 'harmonised' 230V standard because some countries use 220V and the UK uses 240V. The tolerance permitted is 10%, so both 220V and 240V fall inside this new standard. The output remained exactly the same in all affected countries.
My understanding is that the UK (and continental Europe) are moving towards 230V.
So, while 230V +/- 10V was true at inception, it is no longer the case.
It is still 230V +10% (not 10V) or -6%. We won't be swapping over any time soon.
There is a point to the standard though - it specifies the maximum voltage that appliance suppliers should expect. If your kettle catches fire at 253V, that's bad. If it catches fire at 254V, that's OK.
Decent looking results for one of the Chinese vaccines:
Immunogenicity and safety of a recombinant adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18 years or older: a randomised, double-blind, placebo- controlled, phase 2 trial https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620316056.pdf ...Findings 603 volunteers were recruited and screened for eligibility between April 11 and 16, 2020. 508 eligible participants (50% male; mean age 39·7 years, SD 12·5) consented to participate in the trial and were randomly assigned to receive the vaccine (1×1011 viral particles n=253; 5×1010 viral particles n=129) or placebo (n=126). In the 1×1011 and 5×1010 viral particles dose groups, the RBD-specific ELISA antibodies peaked at 656·5 (95% CI 575·2–749·2) and 571·0 (467·6–697·3), with seroconversion rates at 96% (95% CI 93–98) and 97% (92–99), respectively, at day 28. Both doses of the vaccine induced significant neutralising antibody responses to live SARS-CoV-2, with GMTs of 19·5 (95% CI 16·8–22·7) and 18·3 (14·4–23·3) in participants receiving 1×1011 and 5 × 1010 viral particles, respectively. Specific interferon γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay responses post vaccination were observed in 227 (90%, 95% CI 85–93) of 253 and 113 (88%, 81–92) of 129 participants in the 1 × 1011 and 5 × 1010 viral particles dose groups, respectively. Solicited adverse reactions were reported by 183 (72%) of 253 and 96 (74%) of 129 participants in the 1×1011 and 5×1010 viral particles dose groups, respectively. Severe adverse reactions were reported by 24 (9%) participants in the 1 × 1011 viral particles dose group and one (1%) participant in the 5 × 1010 viral particles dose group. No serious adverse reactions were documented. Interpretation The Ad5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine at 5 × 1010 viral particles is safe, and induced significant immune responses in the majority of recipients after a single immunisation.
I wonder if this graph might fall into the category of "accurate but misleading", given that, for example, a constant death rate would appear as a falling graph due to the delays in reporting.
The whole point of the first graph is to illustrate the reporting delays - after 3-5 days they have a minor effect.
Comments
TL;DR summary: Overall the BLM protests had no statistically significant impact on the spread of COVID19. Where large protests existed they actually had a slightly negative effect on the spread (ie it reduced the spread of COVID19) but it wasn't negative enough to be statistically significant.
While the protesters were out and about and where more likely to catch the virus as a result . . . due to the protests non-protesters were more likely to stay at home because of the protests, less likely to be out and about due to the protests. So because more non-protesters were staying at home to stay away from the protests (and not just the virus) it counters the effect of the protesters themselves catching it.
Fascinating and counter intuitive. I find it interesting the overall effect is negative even if it wasn't sufficient to be statistically significant.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2020/07/18/worlds-most-wanted-man-jan-marsalek-located-in-belarus-data-points-to-russian-intel-links/
Oh.....
So, while 230V +/- 10V was true at inception, it is no longer the case.
Though of course the virus appears to be much less transmissible outdoors, and many protestors (vitrtually all of them in yesterday's reported Portland protest) wore masks.
So that's how you catch yours ?
He lies almost as fluently as his 'friend'.
Well done for apologising for your comments
I guess it explains why Frank Sinatra recorded "Fly Me To The Moon" whereas Nancy didn't bother.
What about changes to the system, or even a future write off of student debts?
Martin Lewis is saying that the current site highlights the total outstanding sum, and pushes the quick repayment methods, when the truth is most people won't pay the full outstanding sum, and the quick repayment methods will leave the majority worse off. Seems like a reasonable argument to me.
getting rich is to come to London. Dick Whittington knew a thing or two.
Those staying at home to avoid the protests didn't catch the virus.
Er....result?
https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/
A couple of interesting points -
~They suggest setting up a central laboratory to compare data between vaccines, as the three different assays they used for this trial came up with very different numbers for neutralising antibodies. Comparing like with like is essential.
~The choice of a single dose, rather than prime and booster shots, was one of expedience in the service of delivering it in the shortest time possible:
...A dose of 5×1010 viral particles was chosen on the basis of our previous experience with ChAdOx1 MERS, where despite increased reactogenicity, a dose–response relationship with neutralising antibodies was observed. The protocol was written when the pandemic was accelerating in the UK and a single higher dose was chosen to provide the highest chance of rapid induction of neutralising antibody.
England cases -
Oh......er...........
It explains at least one "dog that hasn't barked" though.
Off topic, GDBO.
https://www.iam-media.com/coronavirus/exclusive-new-ip-policy-help-forge-partnerships-potential-uk-covid-19-vaccine
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1285235518683230208
I think at the 2004 Republican convention we had a similar situation.
She’s a very intelligent animal, I’ll have you know.
Previous system where the debt was no more than about 20k was simple to work out I'll grant.
There is a point to the standard though - it specifies the maximum voltage that appliance suppliers should expect. If your kettle catches fire at 253V, that's bad. If it catches fire at 254V, that's OK.
Immunogenicity and safety of a recombinant adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18 years or older: a randomised, double-blind, placebo- controlled, phase 2 trial
https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620316056.pdf
...Findings 603 volunteers were recruited and screened for eligibility between April 11 and 16, 2020. 508 eligible participants (50% male; mean age 39·7 years, SD 12·5) consented to participate in the trial and were randomly assigned to receive the vaccine (1×1011 viral particles n=253; 5×1010 viral particles n=129) or placebo (n=126). In the 1×1011 and 5×1010 viral particles dose groups, the RBD-specific ELISA antibodies peaked at 656·5 (95% CI 575·2–749·2) and 571·0 (467·6–697·3), with seroconversion rates at 96% (95% CI 93–98) and 97% (92–99), respectively, at day 28. Both doses of the vaccine induced significant neutralising antibody responses to live SARS-CoV-2, with GMTs of 19·5 (95% CI 16·8–22·7) and 18·3 (14·4–23·3) in participants receiving 1×1011 and 5 × 1010 viral particles, respectively. Specific interferon γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay responses post vaccination were observed in 227 (90%, 95% CI 85–93) of 253 and 113 (88%, 81–92) of 129 participants in the 1 × 1011 and 5 × 1010 viral particles dose groups, respectively. Solicited adverse reactions were reported by 183 (72%) of 253 and 96 (74%) of 129 participants in the 1×1011 and 5×1010 viral particles dose groups, respectively. Severe adverse reactions were reported by 24 (9%) participants in the 1 × 1011 viral particles dose group and one (1%) participant in the 5 × 1010 viral particles dose group. No serious adverse reactions were documented.
Interpretation The Ad5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine at 5 × 1010 viral particles is safe, and induced significant immune responses in the majority of recipients after a single immunisation.
NEW THREAD