Another way of thinking about it, one adverse reaction out of how many tens of thousands given the dose?
It's not even certain it was an adverse reaction - it's an unexplained illness which could be unconnected to the trial.
If it led to halting the trial it wasn't just a skin rash.
No, I understand it must be serious, and it quite probably is connected to the vaccine - I am just making the point that until we have confirmation it might be unrelated.
As far as I read it the only change to the law from Monday is previously gatherings of up to six people from different households - or up to 30 people from two households could occur, now gatherings of 6 people indoors or outdoors or at the pub will be the limit in all cases even if from 2 households.
Especially as the rule will not apply to schools and workplaces, or weddings, funerals and organised team sports.
We wait and see if places of worship and theatres and cinemas will also be in the list of exemptions over the weekend.
Oooh, what law is the Government breaking, the public will wonder? Mass internment without trial, confiscation of private property, the army allowed to shoot civilians on sight for littering?
What that? They're fiddling with bits of the Brexit legislation relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol? Yes, that's very important I'm surezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
You're not concerning by the Government publicly admitting it is breaking international law and the impact on our reputation as a nation?
And this isn't about public opinion. This is about something that actually matters for the future prosperity of the country.
I'm getting a bit tired of everyone justifying every outrageous government move with "but it will be very popular"/the people don't care.
There was a time when Government's saw their primary job to serve the interests of the country (and not just the perceived interests of their constituency of support) regardless of short term public opinion. On the basis that by acting competently and in the interests of the country was the best way of being granted further terms in office by the electorate.
My appeal to my Brexiteer allies and friends would be that this goes beyond Brexit.
We have to have a country we can be proud of at the end of this.
And I hope and expect we still will have one.
Are you saying you would never in any circumstances break a treaty no matter how awful?
Let's say hypothetically that the Lisbon Treaty hadn't had Article 50 so there was no way out within EU rules, are you suggesting we should be stuck in the EU indefinitely then on that basis?
No, we'd get mutual consent from the EU and repeal the ECA. The EU wouldn't lock us in after a democratic vote to leave.
And if they did lock us in? If they like the USA in the 1850s said there was no way out but unlike the USA they weren't prepared to go to war over it ... what then?
Remember too that without Article 50 we could only leave either by unilateral repeal, or via agreement. There would have been no time lapsed exit. So they could demand onerous terms and if so would you refuse to consider a unilateral repeal?
That's when gunboat diplomacy becomes realistic, which is why it would never happen. Frankly, your understanding of this subject is extremely poor the EU are not negotiating in bad faith. They haven't broken the terms of the treaty, we are about to.
It has been an interesting evening to watch many of the PB Tories showing revulsion for the govt as Boris & Co trashes the things that previously made them happy to be seen as Conservatives.
Pubs will clearly be closed if it means keeping kids at school.
I'm trying to move at the moment, might reconsider again
It's a completely bogus trade off. At the moment, it appears that every time a school child even hints at COVID symptoms they have to self isolate, and a positive test sends entire classes and year groups home. The schools won't last a few weeks of winter anyway under this approach, regardless of what's happening with pubs.
That is a function of so much legal responsibility having been piled on to schools recently. They are in loco parentis. And have a safeguarding responsibility. Would you have suspected Covid positive kids wondering around? Infecting others and perhaps vulnerable teachers? To whom, as an employer they also have a duty of care?
My point is that it's not a case of "shut the pubs to keep the schools open", since most of the schools are going to end up shutting anyway.
"Ministers panic"- the Mail has got it in for the government at the moment, probably taking the cue from its online readers.
Mail has been very vocal about the government failings since it was under "new management", who isn't a big fan of Boris or Brexit.
Yes, there was a change under Greig, but it's got much more vocal in the last month or so. It was broadly supportive in its tone, with qualifications, right through the election and the early crisis, until around a month ago, and the Boris speech at the school.
No they were definitely giving government both barrels from fairly early on during the Covid crisis (not without justification).
There will be one, I've just been informed of the specifics of the case and the person in question had a severe degenerative disease, the programme has been paused so they can review participants who have similar conditions and start additional monitoring.
But I presume that means preliminary results aren't going to be published in the next few weeks (as suggested by Sarah Gilbert in August) and this bumps everything months down the road now.
We ain't returning to normal for Christmas (like Boris hoped) lads and lasses.
I don't know, I know from a university friend that went into pharma, he messaged back when I posted that tweet in our WhatsApp.
"Ministers panic"- the Mail has got it in for the government at the moment, probably taking the cue from its online readers.
Mail has been very vocal about the government failings since it was under "new management", who isn't a big fan of Boris or Brexit.
Yes, there was a change under Greig, but it's got much more vocal in the last month or so. It was broadly supportive in its tone, with qualifications, right through the election and the early crisis, until around a month ago, and the Boris speech at the school.
No they were definitely giving government both barrels from fairly early on during the Covid crisis (not without justification).
Well, I personally hadn't seen the same evidence of that. My own sense is that they've turned against the govt much more strongly recently.
Oooh, what law is the Government breaking, the public will wonder? Mass internment without trial, confiscation of private property, the army allowed to shoot civilians on sight for littering?
What that? They're fiddling with bits of the Brexit legislation relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol? Yes, that's very important I'm surezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
You're not concerning by the Government publicly admitting it is breaking international law and the impact on our reputation as a nation?
No.
I expected this would be necessary at some points from the moment we decided to Brexit. You can't tear up an old order and build a new one without breaking a few eggs.
If one of the eggs is the "rule of law" then I don't want that new order. And I don't think you should either.
If Parliament changes the law we still have the rule of law.
That's not true, international treaties are not something parliament can unilaterally change. There are mechanisms to do so which include two party consent or arbitration due to a perceived breach of terms. I don't understand why you can't see that this is a disaster for a country that needs to rely on international laws to enforce trade deals we're going to sign and for a country that needs hundreds of billions in FDI over the next decade.
We need other countries to stick to these laws we are now breaking.
The worst part of it is that this is for no gain, there is nothing, literally nothing to be gained from the changes proposed. No one gives a shit about the Irish sea border that sort of exists. The Orangeman drum banging losers are not worth this.
No Parliament can bind it's successors (which includes itself) any Parliament can abandon a Treaty if it wants to do so.
As for no gain I don't agree. I don't give a shit about the Orange men, I couldn't care less about them. But if the EU wants to abuse the NI Protocol to apply "state aid" regulations through the backdoor then that must be halted.
Unless I'm mistaken you have said recently have you not that the UK could never agree the EU's state aid requests? Am I right in thinking that?
Over the weekend there have been numerous reports that the EU considered it could get it's state aid regulations applied via the NI Protocol. Now suddenly this is happening. Coincidence? I think not.
If the EU is planning to abuse the NI Protocol then unilaterally closing any backdoors seems entirely logical to me.
"Ministers panic"- the Mail has got it in for the government at the moment, probably taking the cue from its online readers.
Mail has been very vocal about the government failings since it was under "new management", who isn't a big fan of Boris or Brexit.
Yes, there was a change under Greig, but it's got much more vocal in the last month or so. It was broadly supportive in its tone, with qualifications, right through the election and the early crisis, until around a month ago, and the Boris speech at the school.
No they were definitely giving government both barrels from fairly early on during the Covid crisis (not without justification).
Greig hates Johnson. Remember he was a remainer and strongly backed Theresa May's deal. He just had to reign himself in because of his readers.
On here and in the real world smart Tories understand just how damaging for the UK the government’s decision to renege on treaty commitments it has made will be. It’s a relief to see who they are, too. Sadly for this country’s international standing there aren’t enough of them.
Oooh, what law is the Government breaking, the public will wonder? Mass internment without trial, confiscation of private property, the army allowed to shoot civilians on sight for littering?
What that? They're fiddling with bits of the Brexit legislation relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol? Yes, that's very important I'm surezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
You're not concerning by the Government publicly admitting it is breaking international law and the impact on our reputation as a nation?
No.
I expected this would be necessary at some points from the moment we decided to Brexit. You can't tear up an old order and build a new one without breaking a few eggs.
If one of the eggs is the "rule of law" then I don't want that new order. And I don't think you should either.
If Parliament changes the law we still have the rule of law.
That's not true, international treaties are not something parliament can unilaterally change. There are mechanisms to do so which include two party consent or arbitration due to a perceived breach of terms. I don't understand why you can't see that this is a disaster for a country that needs to rely on international laws to enforce trade deals we're going to sign and for a country that needs hundreds of billions in FDI over the next decade.
We need other countries to stick to these laws we are now breaking.
The worst part of it is that this is for no gain, there is nothing, literally nothing to be gained from the changes proposed. No one gives a shit about the Irish sea border that sort of exists. The Orangeman drum banging losers are not worth this.
No Parliament can bind it's successors (which includes itself) any Parliament can abandon a Treaty if it wants to do so.
As for no gain I don't agree. I don't give a shit about the Orange men, I couldn't care less about them. But if the EU wants to abuse the NI Protocol to apply "state aid" regulations through the backdoor then that must be halted.
Unless I'm mistaken you have said recently have you not that the UK could never agree the EU's state aid requests? Am I right in thinking that?
Over the weekend there have been numerous reports that the EU considered it could get it's state aid regulations applied via the NI Protocol. Now suddenly this is happening. Coincidence? I think not.
If the EU is planning to abuse the NI Protocol then unilaterally closing any backdoors seems entirely logical to me.
The EU can't do that by the terms of the WA. If they do it then we should legislate to close it, we'd have casus belli at that point. Right now we're going out on a limb for nothing.
Pubs will clearly be closed if it means keeping kids at school.
I'm trying to move at the moment, might reconsider again
It's a completely bogus trade off. At the moment, it appears that every time a school child even hints at COVID symptoms they have to self isolate, and a positive test sends entire classes and year groups home. The schools won't last a few weeks of winter anyway under this approach, regardless of what's happening with pubs.
That is a function of so much legal responsibility having been piled on to schools recently. They are in loco parentis. And have a safeguarding responsibility. Would you have suspected Covid positive kids wondering around? Infecting others and perhaps vulnerable teachers? To whom, as an employer they also have a duty of care?
My point is that it's not a case of "shut the pubs to keep the schools open", since most of the schools are going to end up shutting anyway.
OK fair enough. I apologise for my somewhat strident tone. I misunderstood your intended point.
The Mail clearly supported the govt through and during the election, though. I assumed that was Dacre, still as editor-in-chief but not editor, and Rothermere, overriding Greig. Now something else seems to be going on.
I also seem to remember criticism of government policy in the early stages of the pandemic in the Mail, but not so much personal criticism of Johnson and ministers. I do think something has got more pronounced, and they may just be following their readers.
On topic (yeah, yeah, I'm sorry), the UK has been in the process of trying to replicate existing double taxation and withholding tax treaties with existing EU states.
Given a great many European holding group structures have the UK as the top of the tree, this is a pretty big deal.
It seems like poor timing, therefore, for the UK government to do this and then expect the Germans or the French or the Irish to suddenly want to be very helpful.
No indoors or outdoors, so i guess that means restarting of attending sports and arts in person is now off again.
Seems sensible. Roll on next year for a vaccine.
We need to learn to live with the virus. This draconian cycle cannot continue forever. Risk segmentation of some kind needs to be seriously considered.
Packed restaurants in August. Cases spiking across the nation the next month.
Until two weeks ago the authorities were adamant that pubs and restaurants explicitly WEREN'T the problem - so much so that many of the local lockdown measures have imposed harsher conditions on groupings in private households than in public venues.
This was Leicester in August, in our extended "lockdown".
Ironically one of the restaurants is "Jimmy's Killer Prawns". Not one that tempts me!
Yes the Eat out scheme was completely mad and even the dimmest Tory could have imagined what would have happened with unscrupulous owners packing them in wherever they could. I avoid it.
If we get an effective and safe vaccine good, if not then we just continue as now, for years if necessary
No. If we don't get a vaccine then the accumulated cost of this limbo makes the alternative strategies of elimination, or dropping all restrictions, increasingly attractive. And there is also the chance that we learn better ways to treat the illness, or to stop its spread, to make both of those alternatives easier to implement.
There's a time limit to this limbo, and it's not measured in multiple years.
We will need to still maintain social distancing regardless, too many catching it at one time will put too much pressure on the health service but yes otherwise try and continue as much as normal
On here and in the real world smart Tories understand just how damaging for the UK the government’s decision to renege on treaty commitments it has made will be. It’s a relief to see who they are, too. Sadly for this country’s international standing there aren’t enough of them.
One of the killer points made earlier, is that in many areas of the negotiations with the EU, the UK Govt is complaining that they are trying to impose unnecessarily strict enforcement mechanisms in areas where history suggests that the UK are very unlikely to move in a way that actively might require enforcement. They are seeking "flexibility" and a certain measure of trust in underpinning the potential agreements. Ironically, one area that many have argued for that is in relation to policing the Irish border (some sort of "theoretical" border that was largely ignored in practical terms - a la various Swiss EU borders)
All that of course has now gone out of the window, as will be the case in other trade negotiations. It would be all very well if the UK were banging the drum for watertight mechanisms across the board, but they aren't. So actions like this have holed their own negotiating stances below the waterline.
Oooh, what law is the Government breaking, the public will wonder? Mass internment without trial, confiscation of private property, the army allowed to shoot civilians on sight for littering?
What that? They're fiddling with bits of the Brexit legislation relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol? Yes, that's very important I'm surezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
You're not concerning by the Government publicly admitting it is breaking international law and the impact on our reputation as a nation?
No.
I expected this would be necessary at some points from the moment we decided to Brexit. You can't tear up an old order and build a new one without breaking a few eggs.
If one of the eggs is the "rule of law" then I don't want that new order. And I don't think you should either.
If Parliament changes the law we still have the rule of law.
That's not true, international treaties are not something parliament can unilaterally change. There are mechanisms to do so which include two party consent or arbitration due to a perceived breach of terms. I don't understand why you can't see that this is a disaster for a country that needs to rely on international laws to enforce trade deals we're going to sign and for a country that needs hundreds of billions in FDI over the next decade.
We need other countries to stick to these laws we are now breaking.
The worst part of it is that this is for no gain, there is nothing, literally nothing to be gained from the changes proposed. No one gives a shit about the Irish sea border that sort of exists. The Orangeman drum banging losers are not worth this.
No Parliament can bind it's successors (which includes itself) any Parliament can abandon a Treaty if it wants to do so.
As for no gain I don't agree. I don't give a shit about the Orange men, I couldn't care less about them. But if the EU wants to abuse the NI Protocol to apply "state aid" regulations through the backdoor then that must be halted.
Unless I'm mistaken you have said recently have you not that the UK could never agree the EU's state aid requests? Am I right in thinking that?
Over the weekend there have been numerous reports that the EU considered it could get it's state aid regulations applied via the NI Protocol. Now suddenly this is happening. Coincidence? I think not.
If the EU is planning to abuse the NI Protocol then unilaterally closing any backdoors seems entirely logical to me.
The EU can't do that by the terms of the WA. If they do it then we should legislate to close it, we'd have casus belli at that point. Right now we're going out on a limb for nothing.
They're now saying they do have the right to do it. We are passing the bill now and if we are saying in advance no they don't (even if their lawyers and the ECJ could twist it to say they do despite that not being the intention) then is that reasonable?
Ironically a friend of a good friend was one of 800 permitted to watch Cambridge United v Fulham u-21s in the EFL Trophy tonight. That may be a quiz question for the future. And an unlikely contender for largest crowd of the season.
Oooh, what law is the Government breaking, the public will wonder? Mass internment without trial, confiscation of private property, the army allowed to shoot civilians on sight for littering?
What that? They're fiddling with bits of the Brexit legislation relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol? Yes, that's very important I'm surezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
You're not concerning by the Government publicly admitting it is breaking international law and the impact on our reputation as a nation?
No.
I expected this would be necessary at some points from the moment we decided to Brexit. You can't tear up an old order and build a new one without breaking a few eggs.
If one of the eggs is the "rule of law" then I don't want that new order. And I don't think you should either.
If Parliament changes the law we still have the rule of law.
That's not true, international treaties are not something parliament can unilaterally change. There are mechanisms to do so which include two party consent or arbitration due to a perceived breach of terms. I don't understand why you can't see that this is a disaster for a country that needs to rely on international laws to enforce trade deals we're going to sign and for a country that needs hundreds of billions in FDI over the next decade.
We need other countries to stick to these laws we are now breaking.
The worst part of it is that this is for no gain, there is nothing, literally nothing to be gained from the changes proposed. No one gives a shit about the Irish sea border that sort of exists. The Orangeman drum banging losers are not worth this.
No Parliament can bind it's successors (which includes itself) any Parliament can abandon a Treaty if it wants to do so.
As for no gain I don't agree. I don't give a shit about the Orange men, I couldn't care less about them. But if the EU wants to abuse the NI Protocol to apply "state aid" regulations through the backdoor then that must be halted.
Unless I'm mistaken you have said recently have you not that the UK could never agree the EU's state aid requests? Am I right in thinking that?
Over the weekend there have been numerous reports that the EU considered it could get it's state aid regulations applied via the NI Protocol. Now suddenly this is happening. Coincidence? I think not.
If the EU is planning to abuse the NI Protocol then unilaterally closing any backdoors seems entirely logical to me.
The EU can't do that by the terms of the WA. If they do it then we should legislate to close it, we'd have casus belli at that point. Right now we're going out on a limb for nothing.
They're now saying they do have the right to do it. We are passing the bill now and if we are saying in advance no they don't (even if their lawyers and the ECJ could twist it to say they do despite that not being the intention) then is that reasonable?
They can say what they want, let them do it and then we can retaliate. That's how these things work. We don't have cause, theory isn't reality.
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
On topic (yeah, yeah, I'm sorry), the UK has been in the process of trying to replicate existing double taxation and withholding tax treaties with existing EU states.
Given a great many European holding group structures have the UK as the top of the tree, this is a pretty big deal.
It seems like poor timing, therefore, for the UK government to do this and then expect the Germans or the French or the Irish to suddenly want to be very helpful.
If we get an effective and safe vaccine good, if not then we just continue as now, for years if necessary
You expecting there to be a country left at the end of it?
You expecting there to be a world left at the end of it?
For goodness sake even if they get Covid over 95% of the global population will survive it.
We hope for a vaccine but if not we press on and protect the most vulnerable and keep the economy going
I must have misinterpreted what you meant by "continue as now". From next Monday the Govt is largely forbidding the opportunity for people to form new social relationships. What you have now, is what you are stuck with. In economic terms "as now" is not sustainable in the medium term, arguably for many not even in the short term. Continuing this madness of the Government on Friday saying everything is under control and planning to open up further areas of the economy, and the following Tuesday announcing that we are getting very close again to a defacto national lockdown is not a sustainable position. They're even on the verge of ditching the idea of measures being localised.
Every vaccine causes adverse reactions - that's why trials are done. We will have to await to see how serious this one is.
Spot on: the vaccine has been given to tens of thousands of people now. Let's see how severe the reaction is before we jump to too many conclusions.
And let's not also forget that while this vaccine is "first in line", there are another eight vaccine currently in Phase 3. And while I'd really like a British vaccine to be number one, the world should probably want the Pfizer vaccine to work, because that is by far the easiest to manufacture,
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
No, it's not. We need to wait for them to make the move first. We haven't got cause to make unilateral changes to a treaty.
Every vaccine causes adverse reactions - that's why trials are done. We will have to await to see how serious this one is.
Spot on: the vaccine has been given to tens of thousands of people now. Let's see how severe the reaction is before we jump to too many conclusions.
And let's not also forget that while this vaccine is "first in line", there are another eight vaccine currently in Phase 3. And while I'd really like a British vaccine to be number one, the world should probably want the Pfizer vaccine to work, because that is by far the easiest to manufacture,
From the sound of it the issue isn't very serious. I'll email you the details tomorrow.
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
No, it's not. We need to wait for them to make the move first. We haven't got cause to make unilateral changes to a treaty.
Fair enough. I don't agree, I think better fix any holes before it too late not afterwards.
Considering the ECJ could act as "Supreme Court" on this otherwise then I don't see how waiting until the ECJ rules against us then moving would be better.
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
No, it's not. We need to wait for them to make the move first. We haven't got cause to make unilateral changes to a treaty.
Fair enough. I don't agree, I think better fix any holes before it too late not afterwards.
It's the same as having casus belli. We don't have it right now, if the EU use legal machinations to try and bring the whole of the UK into its LPF then we will and we would be justified to make the changes to extricate ourselves citing removal of the backstop from the WA and intent of the agreement, I'd go as far as saying we'd be justified to abrogate it if they tried to enforce it anyway (though by what mechanism remains to be seen).
Packed restaurants in August. Cases spiking across the nation the next month.
Until two weeks ago the authorities were adamant that pubs and restaurants explicitly WEREN'T the problem - so much so that many of the local lockdown measures have imposed harsher conditions on groupings in private households than in public venues.
This was Leicester in August, in our extended "lockdown".
Ironically one of the restaurants is "Jimmy's Killer Prawns". Not one that tempts me!
Yes the Eat out scheme was completely mad and even the dimmest Tory could have imagined what would have happened with unscrupulous owners packing them in wherever they could. I avoid it.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that, but certainly some were highly compliant with the rules and others gave lip service. I didn't use the scheme, but clearly it was heavily subscribed.
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
You are making things up. The NI Protocol doesn't even come into force until 1st January of next year. To rip up the Withdrawal agreement in anticipation of a theoretical possibility of the EU not abiding by the agreement is not a valid cause to do so. What you do is wait for the Protocol to come into effect, and then see if they abuse the provisions within it and refer to the arbitration mechanisms contained therein.
And THEN, if you are not satisfied eg. if the arbitration mechanisms that you had willingly signed up to prove not to genuinely offer an impartial judge of the law, you might consider walking away from, or seek to renegotiate the whole agreement. But you can't unilaterally rescind bits of it you don't like.
And remember this is State Aid! State Aid is used and abused by the UK less than almost any other EU state. If anything we should be the ones taking EU countries to court for illegal subsidies, not the other way around!
Every vaccine causes adverse reactions - that's why trials are done. We will have to await to see how serious this one is.
Spot on: the vaccine has been given to tens of thousands of people now. Let's see how severe the reaction is before we jump to too many conclusions.
And let's not also forget that while this vaccine is "first in line", there are another eight vaccine currently in Phase 3. And while I'd really like a British vaccine to be number one, the world should probably want the Pfizer vaccine to work, because that is by far the easiest to manufacture,
Would be a shot in the arm for my Pfizer shares too
If we get an effective and safe vaccine good, if not then we just continue as now, for years if necessary
You expecting there to be a country left at the end of it?
You expecting there to be a world left at the end of it?
For goodness sake even if they get Covid over 95% of the global population will survive it.
We hope for a vaccine but if not we press on and protect the most vulnerable and keep the economy going
I must have misinterpreted what you meant by "continue as now". From next Monday the Govt is largely forbidding the opportunity for people to form new social relationships. What you have now, is what you are stuck with. In economic terms "as now" is not sustainable in the medium term, arguably for many not even in the short term. Continuing this madness of the Government on Friday saying everything is under control and planning to open up further areas of the economy, and the following Tuesday announcing that we are getting very close again to a defacto national lockdown is not a sustainable position. They're even on the verge of ditching the idea of measures being localised.
The changes on Monday actually change very little, you can meet 6 outside now as you can on Monday but not more if only 2 households unlike now, you can meet 6 people at the pub at the same table or in the park etc.
Weddings, funerals, team sports, work meetings and schools will be exempt from the 6 people meeting limit so no change there.
The only real impact might be reducing concerts, theatres etc restarting and limiting public worship and sports crowds but further exemptions will be announced at the weekend
Every vaccine causes adverse reactions - that's why trials are done. We will have to await to see how serious this one is.
Spot on: the vaccine has been given to tens of thousands of people now. Let's see how severe the reaction is before we jump to too many conclusions.
And let's not also forget that while this vaccine is "first in line", there are another eight vaccine currently in Phase 3. And while I'd really like a British vaccine to be number one, the world should probably want the Pfizer vaccine to work, because that is by far the easiest to manufacture,
What does this do for the Trump dream of saving the USA by having a vaccine ready to go just before election day?
If we get an effective and safe vaccine good, if not then we just continue as now, for years if necessary
You expecting there to be a country left at the end of it?
You expecting there to be a world left at the end of it?
For goodness sake even if they get Covid over 95% of the global population will survive it.
We hope for a vaccine but if not we press on and protect the most vulnerable and keep the economy going
I must have misinterpreted what you meant by "continue as now". From next Monday the Govt is largely forbidding the opportunity for people to form new social relationships. What you have now, is what you are stuck with. In economic terms "as now" is not sustainable in the medium term, arguably for many not even in the short term. Continuing this madness of the Government on Friday saying everything is under control and planning to open up further areas of the economy, and the following Tuesday announcing that we are getting very close again to a defacto national lockdown is not a sustainable position. They're even on the verge of ditching the idea of measures being localised.
go back to the train, office and pub, but any more than six in one place is a health risk is not a great message.
The whole point of T and T is to localise nexi of infection, a bit of published analysis as to where this is occurring would be useful.
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
No, it's not. We need to wait for them to make the move first. We haven't got cause to make unilateral changes to a treaty.
Fair enough. I don't agree, I think better fix any holes before it too late not afterwards.
Considering the ECJ could act as "Supreme Court" on this otherwise then I don't see how waiting until the ECJ rules against us then moving would be better.
You are aware that there are occasions when the ECJ has found in the UK's favour in cases before it? This idea that the ECJ will always find on the EU side is ludicrous. And anyway, it was the UK that willingly signed up to the ECJ having an arbitration role. Only six months ago. It's not something that has just been sprung upon us unexpectedly.
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
You are making things up. The NI Protocol doesn't even come into force until 1st January of next year. To rip up the Withdrawal agreement in anticipation of a theoretical possibility of the EU not abiding by the agreement is not a valid cause to do so. What you do is wait for the Protocol to come into effect, and then see if they abuse the provisions within it and refer to the arbitration mechanisms contained therein.
And THEN, if you are not satisfied eg. if the arbitration mechanisms that you had willingly signed up to prove not to genuinely offer an impartial judge of the law, you might consider walking away from, or seek to renegotiate the whole agreement. But you can't unilaterally rescind bits of it you don't like.
And remember this is State Aid! State Aid is used and abused by the UK less than almost any other EU state. If anything we should be the ones taking EU countries to court for illegal subsidies, not the other way around!
You misunderstand the concept of state aid. It doesn't just mean writing a cheque, under EU definitions law changes or even tax cuts can be classes as state aid.
Again I think waiting until after the ECJ rules against us and then overwriting it would be worse than clearing up this mess in advance.
Every vaccine causes adverse reactions - that's why trials are done. We will have to await to see how serious this one is.
Spot on: the vaccine has been given to tens of thousands of people now. Let's see how severe the reaction is before we jump to too many conclusions.
And let's not also forget that while this vaccine is "first in line", there are another eight vaccine currently in Phase 3. And while I'd really like a British vaccine to be number one, the world should probably want the Pfizer vaccine to work, because that is by far the easiest to manufacture,
What does this do for the Trump dream of saving the USA by having a vaccine ready to go just before election day?
Keeps him as the candidate of the anti compulsory masks and anti lockdown voters instead
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
You are making things up. The NI Protocol doesn't even come into force until 1st January of next year. To rip up the Withdrawal agreement in anticipation of a theoretical possibility of the EU not abiding by the agreement is not a valid cause to do so. What you do is wait for the Protocol to come into effect, and then see if they abuse the provisions within it and refer to the arbitration mechanisms contained therein.
And THEN, if you are not satisfied eg. if the arbitration mechanisms that you had willingly signed up to prove not to genuinely offer an impartial judge of the law, you might consider walking away from, or seek to renegotiate the whole agreement. But you can't unilaterally rescind bits of it you don't like.
And remember this is State Aid! State Aid is used and abused by the UK less than almost any other EU state. If anything we should be the ones taking EU countries to court for illegal subsidies, not the other way around!
You misunderstand the concept of state aid. It doesn't just mean writing a cheque, under EU definitions law changes or even tax cuts can be classes as state aid.
Again I think waiting until after the ECJ rules against us and then overwriting it would be worse than clearing up this mess in advance.
But they haven't done anything yet, no cases have been brought and nothing has really changed. This is completely unnecessary and has unnerved a lot of people who we need to keep on side for future trade deals.
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
You are making things up. The NI Protocol doesn't even come into force until 1st January of next year. To rip up the Withdrawal agreement in anticipation of a theoretical possibility of the EU not abiding by the agreement is not a valid cause to do so. What you do is wait for the Protocol to come into effect, and then see if they abuse the provisions within it and refer to the arbitration mechanisms contained therein.
And THEN, if you are not satisfied eg. if the arbitration mechanisms that you had willingly signed up to prove not to genuinely offer an impartial judge of the law, you might consider walking away from, or seek to renegotiate the whole agreement. But you can't unilaterally rescind bits of it you don't like.
And remember this is State Aid! State Aid is used and abused by the UK less than almost any other EU state. If anything we should be the ones taking EU countries to court for illegal subsidies, not the other way around!
You misunderstand the concept of state aid. It doesn't just mean writing a cheque, under EU definitions law changes or even tax cuts can be classes as state aid.
Again I think waiting until after the ECJ rules against us and then overwriting it would be worse than clearing up this mess in advance.
But they haven't done anything yet, no cases have been brought and nothing has really changed. This is completely unnecessary and has unnerved a lot of people who we need to keep on side for future trade deals.
You say they haven't done yet but there was a number of briefings on this topic in recent days and of course the negotiations are ongoing so who knows what has been said there.
If we get an effective and safe vaccine good, if not then we just continue as now, for years if necessary
You expecting there to be a country left at the end of it?
You expecting there to be a world left at the end of it?
For goodness sake even if they get Covid over 95% of the global population will survive it.
We hope for a vaccine but if not we press on and protect the most vulnerable and keep the economy going
I must have misinterpreted what you meant by "continue as now". From next Monday the Govt is largely forbidding the opportunity for people to form new social relationships. What you have now, is what you are stuck with. In economic terms "as now" is not sustainable in the medium term, arguably for many not even in the short term. Continuing this madness of the Government on Friday saying everything is under control and planning to open up further areas of the economy, and the following Tuesday announcing that we are getting very close again to a defacto national lockdown is not a sustainable position. They're even on the verge of ditching the idea of measures being localised.
The changes on Monday actually change very little, you can meet 6 outside now as you can on Monday but not more if only 2 households unlike now, you can meet 6 people at the pub at the same table or in the park etc.
Weddings, funerals, team sports, work meetings and schools will be exempt from the 6 people meeting limit so no change there.
The only real impact might be reducing concerts, theatres etc restarting and limiting public worship and sports crowds but further exemptions will be announced at the weekend
With all those exemptions then what is the point? Not directed at you obviously. Just musing. Sounds like a dead cat after Starmer failed to blunder into the Brexit trap. Which was clearly marked "TRAP. BEWARE." In six foot high letters. In Technicolor. With flashing lights. And a warning siren.
If we get an effective and safe vaccine good, if not then we just continue as now, for years if necessary
You are quite mad.
There is simply no way we can continue in this vein and hold our country together. Sadly I fear too many share your delusions.
As for the usual PB knee-jerk over the Oxon vaccine. It might be better to listen to the detail before luxuriating in more disaster porn.
We can and we will.
In the War we coped with far worse and that lasted 6 years
And, ultimately, that's important to remember.
For most of us, this virus is the most significant national trauma of our lifetime- many people have died, lives have been messed around, much wealth has gone up in smoke. The aftereffects will go on for years. And the trauma has been worse than it could / should have been.
But compared with every pre-1945 generation, the odds have been and still are massively in our favour. That's worth holding onto.
And that's as good an epilogue as I can mange. Nighty night everyone.
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
You are making things up. The NI Protocol doesn't even come into force until 1st January of next year. To rip up the Withdrawal agreement in anticipation of a theoretical possibility of the EU not abiding by the agreement is not a valid cause to do so. What you do is wait for the Protocol to come into effect, and then see if they abuse the provisions within it and refer to the arbitration mechanisms contained therein.
And THEN, if you are not satisfied eg. if the arbitration mechanisms that you had willingly signed up to prove not to genuinely offer an impartial judge of the law, you might consider walking away from, or seek to renegotiate the whole agreement. But you can't unilaterally rescind bits of it you don't like.
And remember this is State Aid! State Aid is used and abused by the UK less than almost any other EU state. If anything we should be the ones taking EU countries to court for illegal subsidies, not the other way around!
You misunderstand the concept of state aid. It doesn't just mean writing a cheque, under EU definitions law changes or even tax cuts can be classes as state aid.
Again I think waiting until after the ECJ rules against us and then overwriting it would be worse than clearing up this mess in advance.
But they haven't done anything yet, no cases have been brought and nothing has really changed. This is completely unnecessary and has unnerved a lot of people who we need to keep on side for future trade deals.
You say they haven't done yet but there was a number of briefings on this topic in recent days and of course the negotiations are ongoing so who knows what has been said there.
If it was so simple for the EU to enforce state aid/LPF rules through an extreme interpretation of the NI Protocol, the issue wouldn't be such an apparent sticking point in the trade talks themselves. Why would the EU need such provisions in the trade agreements, if they've already got everything they need in the NI Protocol to the WA.
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
You are making things up. The NI Protocol doesn't even come into force until 1st January of next year. To rip up the Withdrawal agreement in anticipation of a theoretical possibility of the EU not abiding by the agreement is not a valid cause to do so. What you do is wait for the Protocol to come into effect, and then see if they abuse the provisions within it and refer to the arbitration mechanisms contained therein.
And THEN, if you are not satisfied eg. if the arbitration mechanisms that you had willingly signed up to prove not to genuinely offer an impartial judge of the law, you might consider walking away from, or seek to renegotiate the whole agreement. But you can't unilaterally rescind bits of it you don't like.
And remember this is State Aid! State Aid is used and abused by the UK less than almost any other EU state. If anything we should be the ones taking EU countries to court for illegal subsidies, not the other way around!
You misunderstand the concept of state aid. It doesn't just mean writing a cheque, under EU definitions law changes or even tax cuts can be classes as state aid.
Again I think waiting until after the ECJ rules against us and then overwriting it would be worse than clearing up this mess in advance.
But they haven't done anything yet, no cases have been brought and nothing has really changed. This is completely unnecessary and has unnerved a lot of people who we need to keep on side for future trade deals.
You say they haven't done yet but there was a number of briefings on this topic in recent days and of course the negotiations are ongoing so who knows what has been said there.
It's all irrelevant until they actually do something, that gives us cause, not anonymous briefings from overzealous Eurocrats working for Barnier.
PS Max if this is about the EU not getting control of "state aid" by the backdoor and not about the Orangemen then do you agree that's a good reason for a fight? Even if you disagree with the way it's being done?
You are making things up. The NI Protocol doesn't even come into force until 1st January of next year. To rip up the Withdrawal agreement in anticipation of a theoretical possibility of the EU not abiding by the agreement is not a valid cause to do so. What you do is wait for the Protocol to come into effect, and then see if they abuse the provisions within it and refer to the arbitration mechanisms contained therein.
And THEN, if you are not satisfied eg. if the arbitration mechanisms that you had willingly signed up to prove not to genuinely offer an impartial judge of the law, you might consider walking away from, or seek to renegotiate the whole agreement. But you can't unilaterally rescind bits of it you don't like.
And remember this is State Aid! State Aid is used and abused by the UK less than almost any other EU state. If anything we should be the ones taking EU countries to court for illegal subsidies, not the other way around!
You misunderstand the concept of state aid. It doesn't just mean writing a cheque, under EU definitions law changes or even tax cuts can be classes as state aid.
Again I think waiting until after the ECJ rules against us and then overwriting it would be worse than clearing up this mess in advance.
But they haven't done anything yet, no cases have been brought and nothing has really changed. This is completely unnecessary and has unnerved a lot of people who we need to keep on side for future trade deals.
You say they haven't done yet but there was a number of briefings on this topic in recent days and of course the negotiations are ongoing so who knows what has been said there.
It's all irrelevant until they actually do something, that gives us cause, not anonymous briefings from overzealous Eurocrats working for Barnier.
Fair enough. I disagree but I think we've covered everything. I believe the Bill gets published tomorrow? It will be interesting to see what is actually in it.
"This was our Brexit detox," was how one senior Labour figure put it. "We are now the party of getting on with Brexit and saying the only people frustrating now are the Conservatives."
Sir Keir is attempting to rehabilitate the Labour Party with swathes of former Labour-voting Brexiteers, while also trying to lay the blame for a failure to secure a trade deal not at the feet of the EU but at the feet of the prime minister.
On topic, it's also important to understand the distinction between "must pay regard to" and "is subservient to", as well as the breadth of any enforcement.
Most ECJ cases do not involve national governments at all, but involve companies and products. Very often they involve companies attempting to make one product (that falls in a certain tariff bucket) look like another product that falls in another. So, there's a lot of dry stuff about what exactly constitutes wire wool from a tariff perspective.
I personally have no problem with British courts paying regard to the deliberations of the ECJ, which means (broadly) that while they are free to disagree, they need to acknowledge and explain any difference in reasoning.
This is by no means uncommon, and courts in the US are required to - for example - pay regard to the ISDS tribunals in exactly this way.
Please do not post any rumours or speculation about any super-injunction that isn't published in a national newspaper.
Feel free to delete my reference below. Not that i actually know anything about it, beyond some obscure reference i came across in passing on facebook.
frankly we would be better off with the chinese governement this was is even more autoritarian than May's
Not joking here btw,I cheered when they said we wouldnt be doing the european copyrightthing till I saw what they planned instead which is even worse and now id cards are back on the table will all the flaws they had last time plus a bucket loat more
So my one and only night out in the pub. 3 of us at our table from 3 different families. And we got temperature checked on the way in and had to book the table. But "6 indoors" shuts the pub, and my gym.
Will we expect pubs to close? Or will shagger announce pubs are exempt?
As I understand it you can socialise in a pub with 5 other people or in your home with 5 other people. Or in a park.
But doing it with 6 others is verboten.
So a pub could have 5 tables - suitably distanced - with 6 people at each.
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants Americans to get used to the idea of election results being delayed. In a new interview with Axios on HBO, Zuckerberg said there would be nothing wrong with a delay. In fact, he said it might be necessary this year.
"One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people that there's nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted," Zuckerberg said. "In fact, that might be important to make sure that this is a legitimate and fair election."
So my one and only night out in the pub. 3 of us at our table from 3 different families. And we got temperature checked on the way in and had to book the table. But "6 indoors" shuts the pub, and my gym.
Will we expect pubs to close? Or will shagger announce pubs are exempt?
As I understand it you can socialise in a pub with 5 other people or in your home with 5 other people. Or in a park.
But doing it with 6 others is verboten.
So a pub could have 5 tables - suitably distanced - with 6 people at each.
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants Americans to get used to the idea of election results being delayed. In a new interview with Axios on HBO, Zuckerberg said there would be nothing wrong with a delay. In fact, he said it might be necessary this year.
"One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people that there's nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted," Zuckerberg said. "In fact, that might be important to make sure that this is a legitimate and fair election."
I realise it's nothing to be pleased about, but it's likely the UK will drop out of the top 10 countries with the highest death rate from Covid-19 fairly soon, with Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil and USA about to overtake us on current trends.
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants Americans to get used to the idea of election results being delayed. In a new interview with Axios on HBO, Zuckerberg said there would be nothing wrong with a delay. In fact, he said it might be necessary this year.
"One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people that there's nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted," Zuckerberg said. "In fact, that might be important to make sure that this is a legitimate and fair election."
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants Americans to get used to the idea of election results being delayed. In a new interview with Axios on HBO, Zuckerberg said there would be nothing wrong with a delay. In fact, he said it might be necessary this year.
"One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people that there's nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted," Zuckerberg said. "In fact, that might be important to make sure that this is a legitimate and fair election."
I realise it's nothing to be pleased about, but it's likely the UK will drop out of the top 10 countries with the highest death rate from Covid-19 fairly soon, with Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil and USA about to overtake us on current trends.
In reality it's probably already happened. Not every other countries data and testing is as transparent as ours. Especially in the USA, year to date excess deaths were already over 200k back at end of July when official totals were a fraction of that and still haven't reached that figure.
USA will almost certainly overtake Italy within the week on official tallies.
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants Americans to get used to the idea of election results being delayed. In a new interview with Axios on HBO, Zuckerberg said there would be nothing wrong with a delay. In fact, he said it might be necessary this year.
"One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people that there's nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted," Zuckerberg said. "In fact, that might be important to make sure that this is a legitimate and fair election."
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants Americans to get used to the idea of election results being delayed. In a new interview with Axios on HBO, Zuckerberg said there would be nothing wrong with a delay. In fact, he said it might be necessary this year.
"One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people that there's nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted," Zuckerberg said. "In fact, that might be important to make sure that this is a legitimate and fair election."
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants Americans to get used to the idea of election results being delayed. In a new interview with Axios on HBO, Zuckerberg said there would be nothing wrong with a delay. In fact, he said it might be necessary this year.
"One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people that there's nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted," Zuckerberg said. "In fact, that might be important to make sure that this is a legitimate and fair election."
Good news, bbc report oxford vaccine trials likely to restart in next few days.
I'll happily sign a waiver if neccessary to get it. I know thats not how it works but Covid can kill you being perfctly healthy, think we would have heard about it if the vaccine gad killed anyone healthy by now
Florida's Latino voters have always been a tricky one for the Democrats due to the Cuba issue so its not that big a story, US wide Latino votes turing their back on Dems I would be interested in...
Good news, bbc report oxford vaccine trials likely to restart in next few days.
I'll happily sign a waiver if neccessary to get it. I know thats not how it works but Covid can kill you being perfctly healthy, think we would have heard about it if the vaccine gad killed anyone healthy by now
The Phase 3 trials that are going on right now are supposed to discover three things:
1. Does the vaccine prevent (or lower the chance of) infection? And if infected, are the symptoms meaningfully less severe?
2. Do a meaningful number of participants experience serious adverse reactions?
3. Does the vaccine prime the immune system too much, resulting in an excessive immune response, that can be far worse than the disease itself.
Given around 30,000 people have now been given the vaccine, the two serious (but not life threatening) adverse reactions are probably fine. (They may even be completely unrelated. 30,000 people is - after all - quite a lot of people.)
The researchers are probably now - because this is a single blinded trial - beginning to get meaningful data on (1). That the head of Oxford Vaccine Institute thinks we'll be releasing data in the next 2-3 weeks suggests that they're already seeing a difference in response between the control group and those given the vaccine.
However, the (3) is a big issue. You don't want a situation where 5% of those who get given and see the disease die due to the body's immune system overreacting.
If Biden is doing disproportionately badly amongst latino voters he'd be underperforming AZ I think ?
Isn't Florida a special case because of the Cuba connection, rather than Mexico or other points south? (Tbh I'm sceptical of some about these broad demographics.)
If Biden is doing disproportionately badly amongst latino voters he'd be underperforming AZ I think ?
Isn't Florida a special case because of the Cuba connection, rather than Mexico or other points south? (Tbh I'm sceptical of some about these broad demographics.)
Yes it is. Hispanics in Florida aren't the same as those in other states.
Good news, bbc report oxford vaccine trials likely to restart in next few days.
I'll happily sign a waiver if neccessary to get it. I know thats not how it works but Covid can kill you being perfctly healthy, think we would have heard about it if the vaccine gad killed anyone healthy by now
The Phase 3 trials that are going on right now are supposed to discover three things:
1. Does the vaccine prevent (or lower the chance of) infection? And if infected, are the symptoms meaningfully less severe?
2. Do a meaningful number of participants experience serious adverse reactions?
3. Does the vaccine prime the immune system too much, resulting in an excessive immune response, that can be far worse than the disease itself.
Given around 30,000 people have now been given the vaccine, the two serious (but not life threatening) adverse reactions are probably fine. (They may even be completely unrelated. 30,000 people is - after all - quite a lot of people.)
The researchers are probably now - because this is a single blinded trial - beginning to get meaningful data on (1). That the head of Oxford Vaccine Institute thinks we'll be releasing data in the next 2-3 weeks suggests that they're already seeing a difference in response between the control group and those given the vaccine.
However, the (3) is a big issue. You don't want a situation where 5% of those who get given and see the disease die due to the body's immune system overreacting.
Ive signed up for any p3 trial via the NHS website - but its probably oversubscribed, massively
Florida's Latino voters have always been a tricky one for the Democrats due to the Cuba issue so its not that big a story, US wide Latino votes turing their back on Dems I would be interested in...
So the problem for the media right now is that there's one candidate clearly leading, and that lead never changes, leading to a total lack of news. This is where they turn to their eternal friend and ally when times are dark, statistical noise.
There are a few polls every day, so if you have an intern trawl through all of them, one of them will show a data point telling a different story about some particular group. In this case they seem to have taken a poll of like 1000 or so voters, of whom around 700 are likely voters. Florida is something like 20% Hispanic, so the subsample, which probably isn't demographically balanced, is about 140.
This method pretty much guarantees you find a couple of things like this every week, even if there is zero actual news.
Florida's Latino voters have always been a tricky one for the Democrats due to the Cuba issue so its not that big a story, US wide Latino votes turing their back on Dems I would be interested in...
So the problem for the media right now is that there's one candidate clearly leading, and that lead never changes, leading to a total lack of news. This is where they turn to their eternal friend and ally when times are dark, statistical noise.
There are a few polls every day, so if you have an intern trawl through all of them, one of them will show a data point telling a different story about some particular group. In this case they seem to have taken a poll of like 1000 or so voters, of whom around 700 are likely voters. Florida is something like 20% Hispanic, so the subsample, which probably isn't demographically balanced, is about 140.
This method pretty much guarantees you find a couple of things like this every week, even if there is zero actual news.
Better this than the fawning over Clinton we had from the media in 2016
Comments
Especially as the rule will not apply to schools and workplaces, or weddings, funerals and organised team sports.
We wait and see if places of worship and theatres and cinemas will also be in the list of exemptions over the weekend.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54081131
I felt the same way 4 years ago about Brexit.
Plus ca change....
Goodnight everyone.
As for no gain I don't agree. I don't give a shit about the Orange men, I couldn't care less about them. But if the EU wants to abuse the NI Protocol to apply "state aid" regulations through the backdoor then that must be halted.
Unless I'm mistaken you have said recently have you not that the UK could never agree the EU's state aid requests? Am I right in thinking that?
Over the weekend there have been numerous reports that the EU considered it could get it's state aid regulations applied via the NI Protocol. Now suddenly this is happening. Coincidence? I think not.
If the EU is planning to abuse the NI Protocol then unilaterally closing any backdoors seems entirely logical to me.
For goodness sake even if they get Covid over 95% of the global population will survive it.
We hope for a vaccine but if not we press on and protect the most vulnerable and keep the economy going
I apologise for my somewhat strident tone. I misunderstood your intended point.
I also seem to remember criticism of government policy in the early stages of the pandemic in the Mail, but not so much personal criticism of Johnson and ministers. I do think something has got more pronounced, and they may just be following their readers.
Given a great many European holding group structures have the UK as the top of the tree, this is a pretty big deal.
It seems like poor timing, therefore, for the UK government to do this and then expect the Germans or the French or the Irish to suddenly want to be very helpful.
All that of course has now gone out of the window, as will be the case in other trade negotiations. It would be all very well if the UK were banging the drum for watertight mechanisms across the board, but they aren't. So actions like this have holed their own negotiating stances below the waterline.
That may be a quiz question for the future.
And an unlikely contender for largest crowd of the season.
This so-called law will barely be enforced.
Expect almost universal disobedience.
This government is an utter laughing stock, I’m embarrassed for you even giving their ludicrous pronouncements any credence given their form.
And let's not also forget that while this vaccine is "first in line", there are another eight vaccine currently in Phase 3. And while I'd really like a British vaccine to be number one, the world should probably want the Pfizer vaccine to work, because that is by far the easiest to manufacture,
Considering the ECJ could act as "Supreme Court" on this otherwise then I don't see how waiting until the ECJ rules against us then moving would be better.
There is simply no way we can continue in this vein and hold our country together. Sadly I fear too many share your delusions.
As for the usual PB knee-jerk over the Oxon vaccine. It might be better to listen to the detail before luxuriating in more disaster porn.
And THEN, if you are not satisfied eg. if the arbitration mechanisms that you had willingly signed up to prove not to genuinely offer an impartial judge of the law, you might consider walking away from, or seek to renegotiate the whole agreement. But you can't unilaterally rescind bits of it you don't like.
And remember this is State Aid! State Aid is used and abused by the UK less than almost any other EU state. If anything we should be the ones taking EU countries to court for illegal subsidies, not the other way around!
Weddings, funerals, team sports, work meetings and schools will be exempt from the 6 people meeting limit so no change there.
The only real impact might be reducing concerts, theatres etc restarting and limiting public worship and sports crowds but further exemptions will be announced at the weekend
In the War we coped with far worse and that lasted 6 years
The whole point of T and T is to localise nexi of infection, a bit of published analysis as to where this is occurring would be useful.
Again I think waiting until after the ECJ rules against us and then overwriting it would be worse than clearing up this mess in advance.
Not directed at you obviously. Just musing. Sounds like a dead cat after Starmer failed to blunder into the Brexit trap.
Which was clearly marked "TRAP. BEWARE."
In six foot high letters. In Technicolor. With flashing lights. And a warning siren.
If you are saying we continue with de facto no lockdown, then I agree with you!
For most of us, this virus is the most significant national trauma of our lifetime- many people have died, lives have been messed around, much wealth has gone up in smoke. The aftereffects will go on for years. And the trauma has been worse than it could / should have been.
But compared with every pre-1945 generation, the odds have been and still are massively in our favour. That's worth holding onto.
And that's as good an epilogue as I can mange. Nighty night everyone.
What grounds are there for granting a super-injunction in England?
Knockin on Heaven's Door...
What will His Bobness say?
Something cryptic I guess.
https://unherd.com/thepost/meet-claire-ainsley-keir-starmers-intriguing-new-head-of-policy/
https://brexitcentral.com/author/claire-ainsley/
Most ECJ cases do not involve national governments at all, but involve companies and products. Very often they involve companies attempting to make one product (that falls in a certain tariff bucket) look like another product that falls in another. So, there's a lot of dry stuff about what exactly constitutes wire wool from a tariff perspective.
I personally have no problem with British courts paying regard to the deliberations of the ECJ, which means (broadly) that while they are free to disagree, they need to acknowledge and explain any difference in reasoning.
This is by no means uncommon, and courts in the US are required to - for example - pay regard to the ISDS tribunals in exactly this way.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/09/06/covid-19-why-senegal-outpacing-us-tackling-pandemic/5659696002/??ncid=newsltukhpmgpols
But doing it with 6 others is verboten.
So a pub could have 5 tables - suitably distanced - with 6 people at each.
But who the fuck knows.
"One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people that there's nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted," Zuckerberg said. "In fact, that might be important to make sure that this is a legitimate and fair election."
https://www.newsy.com/stories/facebook-ceo-zuckerberg-election-result-may-be-delayed/
Agree with you about the Aussies whinging for decades about a bit of legitimate leg theory though.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Speed of governance. So much more important than representativeness, accountability, lawfulness, etc.
USA will almost certainly overtake Italy within the week on official tallies.
Many votes lose, but that's democracy. They're still counted.
https://www.theonion.com/evil-genius-gates-drops-windows-98-into-nyc-water-suppl-1819564734
Biden 1.89
Dem 1.85
Trump 2.16
Rep 2.14
1. Does the vaccine prevent (or lower the chance of) infection? And if infected, are the symptoms meaningfully less severe?
2. Do a meaningful number of participants experience serious adverse reactions?
3. Does the vaccine prime the immune system too much, resulting in an excessive immune response, that can be far worse than the disease itself.
Given around 30,000 people have now been given the vaccine, the two serious (but not life threatening) adverse reactions are probably fine. (They may even be completely unrelated. 30,000 people is - after all - quite a lot of people.)
The researchers are probably now - because this is a single blinded trial - beginning to get meaningful data on (1). That the head of Oxford Vaccine Institute thinks we'll be releasing data in the next 2-3 weeks suggests that they're already seeing a difference in response between the control group and those given the vaccine.
However, the (3) is a big issue. You don't want a situation where 5% of those who get given and see the disease die due to the body's immune system overreacting.
There are a few polls every day, so if you have an intern trawl through all of them, one of them will show a data point telling a different story about some particular group. In this case they seem to have taken a poll of like 1000 or so voters, of whom around 700 are likely voters. Florida is something like 20% Hispanic, so the subsample, which probably isn't demographically balanced, is about 140.
This method pretty much guarantees you find a couple of things like this every week, even if there is zero actual news.