Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
My concern over the 'moonshot' is not so much the cost (I take your point above) but my faith in this bunch of clowns delivering the programme effectively.
I suspect they will completely cock it up, regardless of how much they spend on it.
People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.
Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:
(raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).
It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):
From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
Especially as most hospitals remain empty
We are well past the time when authoritarian measures were justified on a "protect the NHS" basis. We`ve slipped into something different. We`re now in a hole we can`t get out of until herd immunity is achieved (probably - hopefully - via a vaccine).
I am sceptical that the vaccine will be first available in the UK, or in a Western country. There is a strong safety culture that is likely to stop any vaccine, as we have just seen with the Oxford vaccine. This has been stopped due to a single person becoming ill, with no proof that the illness has been caused by the vaccine. People get neurological illnesses naturally all the time. I could understand the decision if two or more people had become ill with similar symptoms, but you must expect people to become ill in a large trial. That is the point of doing them, so the trial should continue.
I think it is far more likely that the first vaccine will be deployed in Russia, China or India. The Oxford vaccine trials are still continuing in India, led by the Serum Institute of India.
Consider this. Suppose that you give the vaccine to 100,000 people, knowing that it has a rare side effect that affects 1 in 10,000 people and this kills half of them. You expect 10 people to get this side effect and 5 of them to die.
If these 100,000 are not vaccinated however, eventually many of them will get COVID-19, say 30,000 of them. COVID-19 has a death rate of about 1%, so this will cause around 300 deaths. 300 >> 5, so this is why I believe that a COVID vaccine should not be stopped because of a rare side effect.
I am not optimistic though. Are doctors and scientists who sit on safety bodies going to give up their status and allow safety standards to be redefined in the wider public interest? I will believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, a vaccine will be developed in an eastern country, and when it has been shown to be effective the UK government will have to negotiate even with Russia or China to get it.
I share your scepticism, though the government has already put in an order for vaccines from the Oxford/AstraZeneca trial. If this vaccine ever sees the light of day and turns out to have, as you suggest it might, a rare serious side effect then the government would be taking a heck of a risk in deploying it.
So I guess you are right - for multiple reasons a vaccine in the UK is likely to be further away than many people think. And in the meantime what economic and loss of liberty catastrophes we are being forced to endure!
Even with a safe enough and easily available virus, there will , of course, be a sizeable amount of people (25% + ?) who will either refuse it for various reasons or will just not bother.
The funniest part is it'll be the loudest lockdown complainers that are unwilling to have the vaccine.
I'm signed up for P3 trials anyway (Doubt I'll meet criteria though)
They’ve literally doubled the proportion of their sample with no college.
Has to be said that after GE2015 and the massive oversampling of the Young for us all to have missed the gross undersampling of No College in 2016 seems like a huge collective blunder by us.
In 2016 SurveyUSA issued a Minnesota state poll done in late October with the headline numbers Clinton: 49% Trump: 39%
The actual result was Clinton: 46.5% Trump: 45%
Bad miss SurveyUSA, bad miss. Now, the main reason given for the Great Big Polling Miss in the Midwest (GBPMM) is that polls undersampled no-college education voters
SurveyUSA have just done a Minnesota poll giving headline figures of Biden 49% Trump 40%
That's basically the same as last time! Have SurveyUSA learnt their lesson? Are they heading for exactly the same GBPMM? Well... Survey USA are actually a decent pollster and release comprehensive cross tabs
In 2016 their education population was High School or less: 17% Some College: 38% 4 year College: 45%
In 2020 their education population is: High School or less: 33% Some College: 35% 4 year College: 32%
If you think the same kind of GBPMM is going to happen again then I think you are barking up the wrong tree,
Some college is still not no college though is it and it may well be that it is shy Trump's that are still the same problem, just not adding a few more voters to the sample who do not have a 4 year college degree. In 2012 for example Romney won only 35% of non high school graduates and 48% of High school graduates. In 2016 Trump by contrast won 51% of those with only High school education or less, a big shift.
Romney won 48% of those with some college, Trump 52%, not a major shift and Romney won 51% of college graduates, more than the 45% of graduates Trump won.
In that case Trafalgar group's sampling adjusting its headline voting intention by its subsequent question as to what their neighbours think they would do will still be most accurate in the MidWest.
They’ve literally doubled the proportion of their sample with no college.
Yes and it might make some difference but also no evidence they added the 'how will your neighbour vote' question they need to capture the shy Trump voters Trafalgar did.
Plus note this sample adjustment is for Minnesota which they correctly forecast for Hillary in 2016 anyway, not Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin which went for Trump
Only 80,000 votes were the difference between Trump winning the EC and Clinton winning the EC. That’s absolutely nothing. Trump got lucky at the end of the day, and thus Trafalgar is only of limited value, and I believe you’re vastly overstating the importance of “shy Trump voters”.
And the evidence is virtually no Trump voters have shifted to Biden since 2016, any Biden gains have mainly come from third party voters, particularly from Johnson voters in the West and states like Arizona which he may pick up even if Trump holds the MidWest.
Trump may even slightly increase his black and Florida Cuban American voteshare
I thought we'd moved on from Parliament trying to constrain the government in its negotiations with the EU last Parliament. Now the Lords are going to try and do the same thing aren't they?
Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
I am not sure what we are getting for £100bn. Would that be, say, 50 tests each to get through the year? If I go to a gym in the morning, a football match in the afternoon and a pub at night surely I wouldn't need to be checked 3x. Surely once a week is enough.
There was a microbiologist on R5 this morning who said having a vaccine that we can actually inject someone with by next September would be " a remarkable result". If he is right then that's the sort of time we may be talking about.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
In 2016 SurveyUSA issued a Minnesota state poll done in late October with the headline numbers Clinton: 49% Trump: 39%
The actual result was Clinton: 46.5% Trump: 45%
Bad miss SurveyUSA, bad miss. Now, the main reason given for the Great Big Polling Miss in the Midwest (GBPMM) is that polls undersampled no-college education voters
SurveyUSA have just done a Minnesota poll giving headline figures of Biden 49% Trump 40%
That's basically the same as last time! Have SurveyUSA learnt their lesson? Are they heading for exactly the same GBPMM? Well... Survey USA are actually a decent pollster and release comprehensive cross tabs
In 2016 their education population was High School or less: 17% Some College: 38% 4 year College: 45%
In 2020 their education population is: High School or less: 33% Some College: 35% 4 year College: 32%
If you think the same kind of GBPMM is going to happen again then I think you are barking up the wrong tree,
Some college is still not no college though is it and it may well be that it is shy Trump's that are still the same problem, just not adding a few more voters to the sample who do not have a 4 year college degree. In 2012 for example Romney won only 35% of non high school graduates and 48% of High school graduates. In 2016 Trump by contrast won 51% of those with only High school education or less, a big shift.
Romney won 48% of those with some college, Trump 52%, not a major shift and Romney won 51% of college graduates, more than the 45% of graduates Trump won.
In that case Trafalgar group's sampling adjusting its headline voting intention by its subsequent question as to what their neighbours think they would do will still be most accurate in the MidWest.
They’ve literally doubled the proportion of their sample with no college.
Yes and it might make some difference but also no evidence they added the 'how will your neighbour vote' question they need to capture the shy Trump voters Trafalgar did.
Plus note this sample adjustment is for Minnesota which they correctly forecast for Hillary in 2016 anyway, not Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin which went for Trump
Only 80,000 votes were the difference between Trump winning the EC and Clinton winning the EC. That’s absolutely nothing. Trump got lucky at the end of the day, and thus Trafalgar is only of limited value, and I believe you’re vastly overstating the importance of “shy Trump voters”.
There was a total ~ 130,000 - vote swing toward Clinton from Trump's acceptance speech through to the final results. That's not including the roughly 70,000 or so uncounted Detroit ballots which would almost certainly have swung Michigan.* I don't think the presidency should have been called on the night given how much was outstanding, however it's probably better that it was or a sore loser narrative could have developed for the DEMs which didn't take place.
* Nothing like that existed in PA or WI where the margins were wider so Trump would still have won.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
Some things are more important than the law.
Like establishing the 'correct' power relationship?
Surely any vaccine will be distributed first two vulnerable groups – the elderly, the obese, the infirm. Once it has circulated through that segment of the population, much of the remainder will have had it asymptomatically.
It is possible we get the stage where it's not necessary to vaccinate everyone, because herd immunity has been achieved via a combination of vaccination and asymptomatic transmission.
Flu jab is BMI > 40, so I'll have to gain 7 stone if you're right.
I think you are also under 40 years of age?
Given you are young and fit and have no comorbidities, the risks you face from Covid are minuscule – you might already have had it!!
Not true. The risk of death is very low, but the risk of serious long term consequences are not 'minuscule'.
I think this is actually quite big. In recent years Howard has given the impression of having moved dramatically towards the “crazy” Brexit element, having historically been (obviously) pretty sensible, if on the Right wing. And has certainly never shown any love for the WA and has been on the “we hold all the cards” wing. I think the Govt should be quite worried if people like him are drawing a line over this.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
Some things are more important than the law.
Like establishing the 'correct' power relationship?
Indeed, we need to establish our power and get out from underfoot of the EU.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.
Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:
(raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).
It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):
From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
Especially as most hospitals remain empty
We are well past the time when authoritarian measures were justified on a "protect the NHS" basis. We`ve slipped into something different. We`re now in a hole we can`t get out of until herd immunity is achieved (probably - hopefully - via a vaccine).
I am sceptical that the vaccine will be first available in the UK, or in a Western country. There is a strong safety culture that is likely to stop any vaccine, as we have just seen with the Oxford vaccine. This has been stopped due to a single person becoming ill, with no proof that the illness has been caused by the vaccine. People get neurological illnesses naturally all the time. I could understand the decision if two or more people had become ill with similar symptoms, but you must expect people to become ill in a large trial. That is the point of doing them, so the trial should continue.
I think it is far more likely that the first vaccine will be deployed in Russia, China or India. The Oxford vaccine trials are still continuing in India, led by the Serum Institute of India.
Consider this. Suppose that you give the vaccine to 100,000 people, knowing that it has a rare side effect that affects 1 in 10,000 people and this kills half of them. You expect 10 people to get this side effect and 5 of them to die.
If these 100,000 are not vaccinated however, eventually many of them will get COVID-19, say 30,000 of them. COVID-19 has a death rate of about 1%, so this will cause around 300 deaths. 300 >> 5, so this is why I believe that a COVID vaccine should not be stopped because of a rare side effect.
I am not optimistic though. Are doctors and scientists who sit on safety bodies going to give up their status and allow safety standards to be redefined in the wider public interest? I will believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, a vaccine will be developed in an eastern country, and when it has been shown to be effective the UK government will have to negotiate even with Russia or China to get it.
The problem isn't the risk for the 'herd', it is the risk for the individual.
If there is a 1/10000 risk of a bad reaction, then why wouldn't I wait until everyone else has been vaccinated and thus herd immunity has been achieved without taking the risk myself?
Your numbers are of course correct if the vaccination is compulsory.
I think you have a point. However, for many people the risk to the individual from the virus is significant, especially if there is a second wave. There would also be the benefits after the vaccination of peace of mind about getting COVID, and of being able to get out more (assuming that there are no serious long-term side effects).
The vaccine has not been stopped. The trial is in a short pause while experts assess whether the person who has become ill is likely to be suffering a reaction to the jab, or it is a coincidence.
As far as I can see from reading today's papers, this is standard stuff.
Who knew? As ever, the hysterical PB disaster-pornographers were all over the site like a rash declaring catastrophe.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
Some things are more important than the law.
Like establishing the 'correct' power relationship?
Indeed, we need to establish our power and get out from underfoot of the EU.
Your definition of the EU appears to be so expansive that it includes a lot of our domestic constitution, but establishing the power of Brexit is so important to you that you are happy to trash them.
Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
My concern over the 'moonshot' is not so much the cost (I take your point above) but my faith in this bunch of clowns delivering the programme effectively.
I suspect they will completely cock it up, regardless of how much they spend on it.
Has to be tried though. If the vaccines fail, or are deemed too risky by many even if licenced, what chance apart from this of normality? I'm not seeing it.
I actually think Boris is just the sort of gung-ho, can-do person to have the scientific community believe he will deliver whatever they need. Basically, it is Boris's strong suit.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
Some things are more important than the law.
Like establishing the 'correct' power relationship?
Indeed, we need to establish our power and get out from underfoot of the EU.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
Some things are more important than the law.
Like establishing the 'correct' power relationship?
Indeed, we need to establish our power and get out from underfoot of the EU.
Your definition of the EU appears to be so expansive that it includes a lot of our domestic constitution, but establishing the power of Brexit is so important to you that you are happy to trash them.
If Parliament votes for this law then that is within our domestic constitution.
Yes I am happy to trash "international law". "International law" is already trash.
Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
I am not sure what we are getting for £100bn. Would that be, say, 50 tests each to get through the year? If I go to a gym in the morning, a football match in the afternoon and a pub at night surely I wouldn't need to be checked 3x. Surely once a week is enough.
There was a microbiologist on R5 this morning who said having a vaccine that we can actually inject someone with by next September would be " a remarkable result". If he is right then that's the sort of time we may be talking about.
My non informed guess would be we get a vaccine before we get to the moonshot levels of testing, but if that happens there is no reason why it would end up costing £100bn before it was aborted.
You are right we dont know what we would be getting or the operation details, that is the nature of new science. Intuitively you are also right that the test results should be transferable between venues, rather than one at each location. As is Anabobazina that the govt will almost certainly screw up the delivery of it.
Surely any vaccine will be distributed first two vulnerable groups – the elderly, the obese, the infirm. Once it has circulated through that segment of the population, much of the remainder will have had it asymptomatically.
It is possible we get the stage where it's not necessary to vaccinate everyone, because herd immunity has been achieved via a combination of vaccination and asymptomatic transmission.
Flu jab is BMI > 40, so I'll have to gain 7 stone if you're right.
I think you are also under 40 years of age?
Given you are young and fit and have no comorbidities, the risks you face from Covid are minuscule – you might already have had it!!
Not true. The risk of death is very low, but the risk of serious long term consequences are not 'minuscule'.
Higher than the 1 in 20,000 risk from the vaccine currently paused I'd guess.
Just trying to find other states where SurveyUSA did a 2016 state poll and have done a 2020 state poll and yup, there is serious upping of Highschool or less in their samples.
In 2016 Kansas poll (after Likely voter screen) High SChool or less: 14%
In 2020 Kansas poll (after Likely voter screen) High School or less: 31%
And this almost entirely comes at the expense of Bachelors or more educated who drop by 11 points.
If you re-weighted their 2020 poll by their 2016 weighting for education you'd have Trump and Biden within a point of each other in Kansas as opposed to the 7 point gap it currently is.
Just trying to find other states where SurveyUSA did a 2016 state poll and have done a 2020 state poll and yup, there is serious upping of Highschool or less in their samples.
In 2016 Kansas poll (after Likely voter screen) High SChool or less: 14%
In 2020 Kansas poll (after Likely voter screen) High School or less: 31%
And this almost entirely comes at the expense of Bachelors or more educated who drop by 11 points.
Have you checked the Rasmussen 2012 state polling for President Romney yet ?
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
Some things are more important than the law.
And some things aren't Philip. Agreeing that there could be constraints on intra UK trade so that NI could keep a special position in accordance with the Irish peace accords was frankly annoying not only to me but the Unionists of NI who understandably see this as a second class UK citizenship by the back door. In an idea world we would not have done it but we were not in an ideal world and wanted the transitional agreement.
So we agreed. Our word should stand for something, indeed a lot, and we should not break it just because it is inconvenient. Whilst I did not agree with all of her premise the quotes from Mrs T by @Cyclefree yesterday were on point there. We are giving up something important here and we are doing it for reasons that seem to vary every time a government minister opens his mouth. It's just not worth the price that we will pay. It is a mistake and threatening this as a tactic to get the EU to be more flexible (a) probably won't work and (b) is just not worth the price.
I think this is actually quite big. In recent years Howard has given the impression of having moved dramatically towards the “crazy” Brexit element, having historically been (obviously) pretty sensible, if on the Right wing. And has certainly never shown any love for the WA and has been on the “we hold all the cards” wing. I think the Govt should be quite worried if people like him are drawing a line over this.
Howard basically wanted to go to No Deal last year rather than sign the WA and that would then have ensured no border in the Irish Sea.
However now the WA has been signed and passed as a lawyer he thinks we have to abide by it.
Plus Howard has history with Boris, forcing him to go to Liverpool to apologies for comments in a Spectator article and sacking him from his shadow Cabinet pre 2005 after he lied about an affair with Petronella Wyatt
Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
I am not sure what we are getting for £100bn. Would that be, say, 50 tests each to get through the year? If I go to a gym in the morning, a football match in the afternoon and a pub at night surely I wouldn't need to be checked 3x. Surely once a week is enough.
There was a microbiologist on R5 this morning who said having a vaccine that we can actually inject someone with by next September would be " a remarkable result". If he is right then that's the sort of time we may be talking about.
My non informed guess would be we get a vaccine before we get to the moonshot levels of testing, but if that happens there is no reason why it would end up costing £100bn before it was aborted.
You are right we dont know what we would be getting or the operation details, that is the nature of new science. Intuitively you are also right that the test results should be transferable between venues, rather than one at each location. As is Anabobazina that the govt will almost certainly screw up the delivery of it.
Any mass testing program that requires test to be processed in labs is a waste of time. You could probably deliver a reasonably accurate home test for a tenth of the amount Boris is suggesting.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
I was actually being generous. The alternative is that Boris has disowned his own agreement - the crowning moment of his political career - and is desperate to cobble together an alternative because he's just realized that what went before was going to kick him up the arse.
Surely any vaccine will be distributed first two vulnerable groups – the elderly, the obese, the infirm. Once it has circulated through that segment of the population, much of the remainder will have had it asymptomatically.
It is possible we get the stage where it's not necessary to vaccinate everyone, because herd immunity has been achieved via a combination of vaccination and asymptomatic transmission.
Flu jab is BMI > 40, so I'll have to gain 7 stone if you're right.
I think you are also under 40 years of age?
Given you are young and fit and have no comorbidities, the risks you face from Covid are minuscule – you might already have had it!!
Not true. The risk of death is very low, but the risk of serious long term consequences are not 'minuscule'.
Higher than the 1 in 20,000 risk from the vaccine currently paused I'd guess.
For now, we've no real idea what the risk from the vaccine currently paused is. (And note that while 'paused', those who have been vaccinated are going to stay that way, so in that sense the trial is still running - just not, for now, vaccinating more subjects.)
Just trying to find other states where SurveyUSA did a 2016 state poll and have done a 2020 state poll and yup, there is serious upping of Highschool or less in their samples.
In 2016 Kansas poll (after Likely voter screen) High SChool or less: 14%
In 2020 Kansas poll (after Likely voter screen) High School or less: 31%
And this almost entirely comes at the expense of Bachelors or more educated who drop by 11 points.
Have you checked the Rasmussen 2012 state polling for President Romney yet ?
Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
I am not sure what we are getting for £100bn. Would that be, say, 50 tests each to get through the year? If I go to a gym in the morning, a football match in the afternoon and a pub at night surely I wouldn't need to be checked 3x. Surely once a week is enough.
There was a microbiologist on R5 this morning who said having a vaccine that we can actually inject someone with by next September would be " a remarkable result". If he is right then that's the sort of time we may be talking about.
Some of the costs would be the test, but the admin costs would be huge, and of course at any time folk will have to quarantine.
There is the obvious problem of inaccurate test results too, particularly false negatives.
Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
My concern over the 'moonshot' is not so much the cost (I take your point above) but my faith in this bunch of clowns delivering the programme effectively.
I suspect they will completely cock it up, regardless of how much they spend on it.
It's remarkable how many people I meet in politics (both MPs, think-tankers and advisors) who have zero people skills.
To drive any successful change project you need to hire the best talent, respect their abilities and inspire and lead them.
You don't drive performance by threatening and shouting at them and briefing that they're stupid /idiotic and for the chop. The only thing this drives is strange behaviours. The chief one being staying quiet and arsecovering: everyone tries to avoid or deflect blame and keeps their heads down. Stress levels skyrocket - so you don't get best attendance or performance - and ultimately people quit.
This is basic 101 stuff. So many people in Government have never learnt it.
I think this is actually quite big. In recent years Howard has given the impression of having moved dramatically towards the “crazy” Brexit element, having historically been (obviously) pretty sensible, if on the Right wing. And has certainly never shown any love for the WA and has been on the “we hold all the cards” wing. I think the Govt should be quite worried if people like him are drawing a line over this.
Howard basically wanted to go to No Deal last year rather than sign the WA and that would then have ensured no border in the Irish Sea.
However now the WA has been signed and passed as a lawyer he thinks we have to abide by it.
Plus Howard has history with Boris, forcing him to go to Liverpool to apologies for comments in a Spectator article and sacking him from his shadow Cabinet pre 2005 after he lied about an affair with Petronella Wyatt
If the AZ vaccine has to be junked, global stock markets probably crash further damaging Trump's hopes of re-election. Silver linings and all that.
That depends, most of Trump's voters are anti lockdown and working class or lower middle class with few shareholdings so he would just push the choice as no lockdown with him to protect the economy or lockdown with Biden
If Boris is bluffing and folds after doing this I would have zero respect for him.
Boris's choices are to fold or to destroy the UK and cop the blame for doing so (we would no longer be trustworthy so the City is damaged and Scotland and NI will use it as an excuse to leave - heck the EU would probably sub NI for the Lols).
Take your pick as to which one you think Boris is going to end up doing when it's explained to him the REAL options...
Just trying to find other states where SurveyUSA did a 2016 state poll and have done a 2020 state poll and yup, there is serious upping of Highschool or less in their samples.
In 2016 Kansas poll (after Likely voter screen) High SChool or less: 14%
In 2020 Kansas poll (after Likely voter screen) High School or less: 31%
And this almost entirely comes at the expense of Bachelors or more educated who drop by 11 points.
If you re-weighted their 2020 poll by their 2016 weighting for education you'd have Trump and Biden within a point of each other in Kansas as opposed to the 7 point gap it currently is.
Plus I would point out even Trafalgar has Biden ahead in Minnesota and Kansas will easily vote for Trump again so not exactly a like for like comparison
Surely any vaccine will be distributed first two vulnerable groups – the elderly, the obese, the infirm. Once it has circulated through that segment of the population, much of the remainder will have had it asymptomatically.
It is possible we get the stage where it's not necessary to vaccinate everyone, because herd immunity has been achieved via a combination of vaccination and asymptomatic transmission.
Flu jab is BMI > 40, so I'll have to gain 7 stone if you're right.
I think you are also under 40 years of age?
Given you are young and fit and have no comorbidities, the risks you face from Covid are minuscule – you might already have had it!!
Not true. The risk of death is very low, but the risk of serious long term consequences are not 'minuscule'.
I'm not sure you have the evidence for that claim.
Professor Carl Heneghan (Oxon) said this week that the risks to under-50s from Covid are "almost zero". He wasn't just talking about deaths.
Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
I am not sure what we are getting for £100bn. Would that be, say, 50 tests each to get through the year? If I go to a gym in the morning, a football match in the afternoon and a pub at night surely I wouldn't need to be checked 3x. Surely once a week is enough.
There was a microbiologist on R5 this morning who said having a vaccine that we can actually inject someone with by next September would be " a remarkable result". If he is right then that's the sort of time we may be talking about.
My non informed guess would be we get a vaccine before we get to the moonshot levels of testing, but if that happens there is no reason why it would end up costing £100bn before it was aborted.
You are right we dont know what we would be getting or the operation details, that is the nature of new science. Intuitively you are also right that the test results should be transferable between venues, rather than one at each location. As is Anabobazina that the govt will almost certainly screw up the delivery of it.
Any mass testing program that requires test to be processed in labs is a waste of time. You could probably deliver a reasonably accurate home test for a tenth of the amount Boris is suggesting.
If the test results are to be available in 15 mins, which is part of the moonshot plan, they must be tests that can be carried out anywhere - the comparison was with a pregnancy test.
If Boris is bluffing and folds after doing this I would have zero respect for him.
What if he folds but claims success as he normally does?
If he was successful like last time then great, if he wasn't then that's not good.
So successful that in order to correct it, he has to destroy the UKs reputation for the rule of law within a year of signing the treaty!! Not exactly a high bar.
People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.
Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:
(raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).
It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):
From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
Especially as most hospitals remain empty
We are well past the time when authoritarian measures were justified on a "protect the NHS" basis. We`ve slipped into something different. We`re now in a hole we can`t get out of until herd immunity is achieved (probably - hopefully - via a vaccine).
I am sceptical that the vaccine will be first available in the UK, or in a Western country. There is a strong safety culture that is likely to stop any vaccine, as we have just seen with the Oxford vaccine. This has been stopped due to a single person becoming ill, with no proof that the illness has been caused by the vaccine. People get neurological illnesses naturally all the time. I could understand the decision if two or more people had become ill with similar symptoms, but you must expect people to become ill in a large trial. That is the point of doing them, so the trial should continue.
I think it is far more likely that the first vaccine will be deployed in Russia, China or India. The Oxford vaccine trials are still continuing in India, led by the Serum Institute of India.
Consider this. Suppose that you give the vaccine to 100,000 people, knowing that it has a rare side effect that affects 1 in 10,000 people and this kills half of them. You expect 10 people to get this side effect and 5 of them to die.
If these 100,000 are not vaccinated however, eventually many of them will get COVID-19, say 30,000 of them. COVID-19 has a death rate of about 1%, so this will cause around 300 deaths. 300 >> 5, so this is why I believe that a COVID vaccine should not be stopped because of a rare side effect.
I am not optimistic though. Are doctors and scientists who sit on safety bodies going to give up their status and allow safety standards to be redefined in the wider public interest? I will believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, a vaccine will be developed in an eastern country, and when it has been shown to be effective the UK government will have to negotiate even with Russia or China to get it.
The problem isn't the risk for the 'herd', it is the risk for the individual.
If there is a 1/10000 risk of a bad reaction, then why wouldn't I wait until everyone else has been vaccinated and thus herd immunity has been achieved without taking the risk myself?
Your numbers are of course correct if the vaccination is compulsory.
I think you have a point. However, for many people the risk to the individual from the virus is significant, especially if there is a second wave. There would also be the benefits after the vaccination of peace of mind about getting COVID, and of being able to get out more (assuming that there are no serious long-term side effects).
The vaccine has not been stopped. The trial is in a short pause while experts assess whether the person who has become ill is likely to be suffering a reaction to the jab, or it is a coincidence.
As far as I can see from reading today's papers, this is standard stuff.
Who knew? As ever, the hysterical PB disaster-pornographers were all over the site like a rash declaring catastrophe.
Link ?
Not sure it is possible to link to PB posts?
Search Eagles' post the other night about stepmons and read several posts around that time.
Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
I am not sure what we are getting for £100bn. Would that be, say, 50 tests each to get through the year? If I go to a gym in the morning, a football match in the afternoon and a pub at night surely I wouldn't need to be checked 3x. Surely once a week is enough.
There was a microbiologist on R5 this morning who said having a vaccine that we can actually inject someone with by next September would be " a remarkable result". If he is right then that's the sort of time we may be talking about.
Some of the costs would be the test, but the admin costs would be huge, and of course at any time folk will have to quarantine.
There is the obvious problem of inaccurate test results too, particularly false negatives.
I would have thought quite a lot of the cost would and should be put on the private sector. If you want 500 people in your nightclub its your job and cost to ensure that they all have up to date clearance and to test any that don't. Ditto sports events, gyms etc. If that costs too much then you can't do it, up to you.
I agree it would not be a perfect system but if it was 95% accurate it really should isolate the vast majority of the infected fairly quickly and get them out of general circulation.
If Boris is bluffing and folds after doing this I would have zero respect for him.
Boris's choices are to fold or to destroy the UK and cop the blame for doing so (we would no longer be trustworthy so the City is damaged and Scotland and NI will use it as an excuse to leave - heck the EU would probably sub NI for the Lols).
Take your pick as to which one you think Boris is going to end up doing when it's explained to him the REAL options...
If the EU refuse to compromise still, Boris by removing an Irish Sea border can win back the DUP who are still the largest party in NI and supply the First Minister and can then blame the EU for refusing to compromise on fishing and state aid and sell that as leading to the UK pushing measures to help fishermen being implemented, including Scottish fishermen getting more catch and also state aid for the RedWall industries and the central belt of Scotland
Last night I was watching the election night unfold. Indiana was unable to be projected as it was too close to call ! After cheering at my telly thinking of the bank of Biden payout I woke up.
If Boris is bluffing and folds after doing this I would have zero respect for him.
Boris's choices are to fold or to destroy the UK and cop the blame for doing so (we would no longer be trustworthy so the City is damaged and Scotland and NI will use it as an excuse to leave - heck the EU would probably sub NI for the Lols).
Take your pick as to which one you think Boris is going to end up doing when it's explained to him the REAL options...
How about the third way, keep Brexit in the courts and parliament up until 2024, making it look like others are blocking it. Is that whats just been started?
If Boris is bluffing and folds after doing this I would have zero respect for him.
Boris's choices are to fold or to destroy the UK and cop the blame for doing so (we would no longer be trustworthy so the City is damaged and Scotland and NI will use it as an excuse to leave - heck the EU would probably sub NI for the Lols).
Take your pick as to which one you think Boris is going to end up doing when it's explained to him the REAL options...
If Boris is bluffing and folds after doing this I would have zero respect for him.
Boris's choices are to fold or to destroy the UK and cop the blame for doing so (we would no longer be trustworthy so the City is damaged and Scotland and NI will use it as an excuse to leave - heck the EU would probably sub NI for the Lols).
Take your pick as to which one you think Boris is going to end up doing when it's explained to him the REAL options...
My guess is that Boris will fold but the EU, out of the goodness of its heart, will allow him to spin it as a victory for the benefit of his admirers. (The EU won't care what happens here politically or whether our international standing is damaged or not.)
It'd most likely be a disaster electorally, but I'd love to see the UK do something ambitious like that. I also think it would be far more potentially beneficial than HS2 for example - I'd not like to state it as a fact but I believe that the Apollo programme was widely viewed as a big growth engine for the US tech sector.
It's Cummings. It's all Cummings. Moonshot. Breaking the WA. £1bn tech companies from thin air.
He's trying to superimpose his blog onto the country.
Boris lets him because he does all the work for him and he can't be arsed.
Some of Cummings' friends are going to make a lot of money from all this.
Yes I think this is a bit of a conspiracy theory.
We all have friends and those in Government will have them in influential places.
He's not doing it for the money. He's do it because it's his life obsession and pet theory.
Agreed but he really can’t go on allegedly giving millions of pounds of public money to his mates, without a tender process, long term. That’s just cronyism. I hope it stops after the COVID panic settles down.
How about the third way, keep Brexit in the courts and parliament up until 2024, making it look like others are blocking it. Is that whats just been started?
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
Some things are more important than the law.
And some things aren't Philip. Agreeing that there could be constraints on intra UK trade so that NI could keep a special position in accordance with the Irish peace accords was frankly annoying not only to me but the Unionists of NI who understandably see this as a second class UK citizenship by the back door. In an idea world we would not have done it but we were not in an ideal world and wanted the transitional agreement.
So we agreed. Our word should stand for something, indeed a lot, and we should not break it just because it is inconvenient. Whilst I did not agree with all of her premise the quotes from Mrs T by @Cyclefree yesterday were on point there. We are giving up something important here and we are doing it for reasons that seem to vary every time a government minister opens his mouth. It's just not worth the price that we will pay. It is a mistake and threatening this as a tactic to get the EU to be more flexible (a) probably won't work and (b) is just not worth the price.
We'll see.
I think the idea about "our word" and integrity is far more important than issues about the law.
However the EU have gone back on their word first, so all is fair in love and war as far as I'm concerned. The Agreement was reached in bad faith so therefore I'm OK with voiding it.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
Some things are more important than the law.
Like establishing the 'correct' power relationship?
Indeed, we need to establish our power and get out from underfoot of the EU.
Your definition of the EU appears to be so expansive that it includes a lot of our domestic constitution, but establishing the power of Brexit is so important to you that you are happy to trash them.
If Parliament votes for this law then that is within our domestic constitution.
Yes I am happy to trash "international law". "International law" is already trash.
I don't know if you are trying to make a clever debating point and appear all sophisticated and stuff, but you make yourself sound precisely as attractive as someone stating an intention to welsh on a bet with a fellow poster on this site on the grounds that he can afford the loss, how's he going to enforce it, that's how people behave in the real world, always have done, etc etc. If you want to sound like that, fine, but most of us (?all of us, except you) don't want our country to sound like that. It is that simple.
If Boris is bluffing and folds after doing this I would have zero respect for him.
Boris's choices are to fold or to destroy the UK and cop the blame for doing so (we would no longer be trustworthy so the City is damaged and Scotland and NI will use it as an excuse to leave - heck the EU would probably sub NI for the Lols).
Take your pick as to which one you think Boris is going to end up doing when it's explained to him the REAL options...
How about the third way, keep Brexit in the courts and parliament up until 2024, making it look like others are blocking it. Is that whats just been started?
Starmer's sussed that game, his Lordship friends probably haven't though.
If Boris is bluffing and folds after doing this I would have zero respect for him.
Boris's choices are to fold or to destroy the UK and cop the blame for doing so (we would no longer be trustworthy so the City is damaged and Scotland and NI will use it as an excuse to leave - heck the EU would probably sub NI for the Lols).
Take your pick as to which one you think Boris is going to end up doing when it's explained to him the REAL options...
So he won't fold then, good.
If he doesn't fold Boris will be known for the next x00 years as the person who destroyed the UK.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
Some things are more important than the law.
Like establishing the 'correct' power relationship?
Indeed, we need to establish our power and get out from underfoot of the EU.
Your definition of the EU appears to be so expansive that it includes a lot of our domestic constitution, but establishing the power of Brexit is so important to you that you are happy to trash them.
If Parliament votes for this law then that is within our domestic constitution.
Yes I am happy to trash "international law". "International law" is already trash.
I don't know if you are trying to make a clever debating point and appear all sophisticated and stuff, but you make yourself sound precisely as attractive as someone stating an intention to welsh on a bet with a fellow poster on this site on the grounds that he can afford the loss, how's he going to enforce it, that's how people behave in the real world, always have done, etc etc. If you want to sound like that, fine, but most of us (?all of us, except you) don't want our country to sound like that. It is that simple.
I have never welched on a bet, I don't go back on my word. But the EU have gone back on theirs so it is karma.
It's Cummings. It's all Cummings. Moonshot. Breaking the WA. £1bn tech companies from thin air.
He's trying to superimpose his blog onto the country.
Boris lets him because he does all the work for him and he can't be arsed.
Some of Cummings' friends are going to make a lot of money from all this.
Yes I think this is a bit of a conspiracy theory.
We all have friends and those in Government will have them in influential places.
He's not doing it for the money. He's do it because it's his life obsession and pet theory.
I agree, but underlying his life's obsession is a certain gullibility. He strikes me as someone it would be easy for the right person to con with tales of creating a British Google with a little help from an activist government.
Last night I was watching the election night unfold. Indiana was unable to be projected as it was too close to call ! After cheering at my telly thinking of the bank of Biden payout I woke up.
This is what happens if you spend too much time on PB
How about the third way, keep Brexit in the courts and parliament up until 2024, making it look like others are blocking it. Is that whats just been started?
We crash out in January
We shall see. There are educated, wise and informed posters who say we will definitely crash out, others equally qualified who say we shall definitely strike a deal. I have no idea, but given both are unpalatable to the various decision makers dont rule out some form of extension of current arrangements.
I don't think that wanting to change the subject from coronavirus in itself makes sense as an explanation. We aren't having an election in November.
I think the problem is that Boris has had no political success since the GE and Sir Keir is increasingly getting under his skin. He was desperate for a political win to satisfy his own sense of self worth if nobody else's.
It doesn't even enter your mind that this might be the right thing to do, does it?
You want to break international law on principle, not because you think it's the right thing to do in this instance.
Some things are more important than the law.
Like establishing the 'correct' power relationship?
Indeed, we need to establish our power and get out from underfoot of the EU.
Your definition of the EU appears to be so expansive that it includes a lot of our domestic constitution, but establishing the power of Brexit is so important to you that you are happy to trash them.
If Parliament votes for this law then that is within our domestic constitution.
Yes I am happy to trash "international law". "International law" is already trash.
I don't know if you are trying to make a clever debating point and appear all sophisticated and stuff, but you make yourself sound precisely as attractive as someone stating an intention to welsh on a bet with a fellow poster on this site on the grounds that he can afford the loss, how's he going to enforce it, that's how people behave in the real world, always have done, etc etc. If you want to sound like that, fine, but most of us (?all of us, except you) don't want our country to sound like that. It is that simple.
I have never welched on a bet, I don't go back on my word. But the EU have gone back on theirs so it is karma.
You whining again about the EU not giving us exactly what we want, because it sure sounds like it?
People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.
Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:
(raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).
It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):
From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
Especially as most hospitals remain empty
We are well past the time when authoritarian measures were justified on a "protect the NHS" basis. We`ve slipped into something different. We`re now in a hole we can`t get out of until herd immunity is achieved (probably - hopefully - via a vaccine).
I am sceptical that the vaccine will be first available in the UK, or in a Western country. There is a strong safety culture that is likely to stop any vaccine, as we have just seen with the Oxford vaccine. This has been stopped due to a single person becoming ill, with no proof that the illness has been caused by the vaccine. People get neurological illnesses naturally all the time. I could understand the decision if two or more people had become ill with similar symptoms, but you must expect people to become ill in a large trial. That is the point of doing them, so the trial should continue.
I think it is far more likely that the first vaccine will be deployed in Russia, China or India. The Oxford vaccine trials are still continuing in India, led by the Serum Institute of India.
Consider this. Suppose that you give the vaccine to 100,000 people, knowing that it has a rare side effect that affects 1 in 10,000 people and this kills half of them. You expect 10 people to get this side effect and 5 of them to die.
If these 100,000 are not vaccinated however, eventually many of them will get COVID-19, say 30,000 of them. COVID-19 has a death rate of about 1%, so this will cause around 300 deaths. 300 >> 5, so this is why I believe that a COVID vaccine should not be stopped because of a rare side effect.
I am not optimistic though. Are doctors and scientists who sit on safety bodies going to give up their status and allow safety standards to be redefined in the wider public interest? I will believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, a vaccine will be developed in an eastern country, and when it has been shown to be effective the UK government will have to negotiate even with Russia or China to get it.
The problem isn't the risk for the 'herd', it is the risk for the individual.
If there is a 1/10000 risk of a bad reaction, then why wouldn't I wait until everyone else has been vaccinated and thus herd immunity has been achieved without taking the risk myself?
Your numbers are of course correct if the vaccination is compulsory.
Compulsory vaccination of adults would surely be unprecedented, unenforceable, and a shark-jumpingly insane infringement of liberty. Is anyone proposing it?
Given that COVID is largely harmless to the vast majority of the population of working age I’m not sure why the purpose of vaccination need be “herd immunity”? If the most at risk are vaccinated and the rest aren’t then the virus basically ceases to become an exceptional public health problem. So why would special measures be needed to combat it. If there is no material risk of the NHS becoming overwhelmed why should taking the risk of contracting the virus not become a matter of personal choice?
It seems to me that we’re in danger of thinking that the actual health consequences of the virus are an irrelevance. If vaccine for the vulnerable backed up by improved treatment results in acceptable health outcomes when set against other public health issues, why does it need to go any further? In the case of flu we only routinely vaccinate the vulnerable (and it’s still a matter of personal choice). Why should this be any different? Yes unfortunately there will be a relatively small number of people who can’t have the vaccination, and are vulnerable - but again that is not a unique situation with vaccines.
Harmless?
"Very likely you won't die" isn't necessarily equated to "harmless"
Using the latest numbers on the IFR variance with age (which is indeed hugely different for the young and the old) and the figures for the first 16,573 hospitalised in the UK to work out the proportion of each age that died to those who were hospitalised and recovered, and the best estimates I've found that 5% of all ages suffer "long Covid" (up to 3 months of symptoms) and a minority of those have on-running chronic damage (estimated at a fifth; could be higher and could be lower) and comparing that to the demographics of the UK in each age range:
That's not at all rigorous, of course, but should be broadly indicative.
A "harmless" virus that hospitalises a third of a million of the age range to whom it is "harmless", kills more than 16,000 of them, and leaves a further third of a million with on-going incapacity of some degree or another (and more than one and a half million incapacitated for up to a quarter of a year) - it does seem to be placing rather an excessive load on the word "harmless."
Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
I am not sure what we are getting for £100bn. Would that be, say, 50 tests each to get through the year? If I go to a gym in the morning, a football match in the afternoon and a pub at night surely I wouldn't need to be checked 3x. Surely once a week is enough.
There was a microbiologist on R5 this morning who said having a vaccine that we can actually inject someone with by next September would be " a remarkable result". If he is right then that's the sort of time we may be talking about.
Some of the costs would be the test, but the admin costs would be huge, and of course at any time folk will have to quarantine.
There is the obvious problem of inaccurate test results too, particularly false negatives.
What are false negatives such a problem in a mass testing regime (providing you're aware of the possibility) ? You'd be testing people who otherwise simply wouldn't be tested.
At the moment we test about 175k per day, and it takes 24 hurst's or more to get a result. So even if we're detecting 100% of those infected, that leaves enormous gaps.
If you were testing 10m a day with a cheap paper strip antigen test and detecting only 70% of those infected, you'd break far more transmission chains (and probably detect almost all of the most infectious). And that technology already exists.
Aside from the cost and practicalities, I'm not sure we want to enter a world where you have to prove that you don't have a disease.
I don't think that you "have" to do anything but if you want to go to a football match, a disco or a sauna it is not unreasonable that the other participants have some assurance that you are safe to do so.
That said, the cost of this is mind blowing.
Lets say it does cost £100bn, thats effectively £1500 each. I think most people, even those who would have to put it on their credit cards, would pay £1500 to get almost back to normal. Of course the govt isnt putting it on credit cards, but long term debt at ultra low interest rates (negative real terms), so will be paying back less than that per person in real terms, and spread over many years.
(I think £100bn is a big overestimate, unless the govt is deliberately overpaying favoured companies, which wouldnt surprise me).
I am not sure what we are getting for £100bn. Would that be, say, 50 tests each to get through the year? If I go to a gym in the morning, a football match in the afternoon and a pub at night surely I wouldn't need to be checked 3x. Surely once a week is enough.
There was a microbiologist on R5 this morning who said having a vaccine that we can actually inject someone with by next September would be " a remarkable result". If he is right then that's the sort of time we may be talking about.
Some of the costs would be the test, but the admin costs would be huge, and of course at any time folk will have to quarantine.
There is the obvious problem of inaccurate test results too, particularly false negatives.
What are false negatives such a problem in a mass testing regime (providing you're aware of the possibility) ? You'd be testing people who otherwise simply wouldn't be tested.
At the moment we test about 175k per day, and it takes 24 hurst's or more to get a result. So even if we're detecting 100% of those infected, that leaves enormous gaps.
If you were testing 10m a day with a cheap paper strip antigen test and detecting only 70% of those infected, you'd break far more transmission chains (and probably detect almost all of the most infectious). And that technology already exists.
If Boris is bluffing and folds after doing this I would have zero respect for him.
Boris's choices are to fold or to destroy the UK and cop the blame for doing so (we would no longer be trustworthy so the City is damaged and Scotland and NI will use it as an excuse to leave - heck the EU would probably sub NI for the Lols).
Take your pick as to which one you think Boris is going to end up doing when it's explained to him the REAL options...
How about the third way, keep Brexit in the courts and parliament up until 2024, making it look like others are blocking it. Is that whats just been started?
Starmer's sussed that game, his Lordship friends probably haven't though.
And the courts dont have the option to stand aside, they have to rule on the laws the govt present them. The govt may be able to deliberately get the courts to block Brexit for them again.
Comments
I suspect they will completely cock it up, regardless of how much they spend on it.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/research/coronavirus-vaccine-research/
I've yet to hear back, too.
Trump may even slightly increase his black and Florida Cuban American voteshare
There was a microbiologist on R5 this morning who said having a vaccine that we can actually inject someone with by next September would be " a remarkable result". If he is right then that's the sort of time we may be talking about.
I don't think the presidency should have been called on the night given how much was outstanding, however it's probably better that it was or a sore loser narrative could have developed for the DEMs which didn't take place.
* Nothing like that existed in PA or WI where the margins were wider so Trump would still have won.
It is Tory vs Labour (except for Scotland, Norn Iron and Wales)
The risk of death is very low, but the risk of serious long term consequences are not 'minuscule'.
I actually think Boris is just the sort of gung-ho, can-do person to have the scientific community believe he will deliver whatever they need. Basically, it is Boris's strong suit.
Yes I am happy to trash "international law". "International law" is already trash.
You are right we dont know what we would be getting or the operation details, that is the nature of new science. Intuitively you are also right that the test results should be transferable between venues, rather than one at each location. As is Anabobazina that the govt will almost certainly screw up the delivery of it.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/13/tech/nasa-budget-moon-mission-artemis/index.html
Musk probably about a tenth.
He's trying to superimpose his blog onto the country.
Boris lets him because he does all the work for him and he can't be arsed.
In 2016 Kansas poll (after Likely voter screen)
High SChool or less: 14%
In 2020 Kansas poll (after Likely voter screen)
High School or less: 31%
And this almost entirely comes at the expense of Bachelors or more educated who drop by 11 points.
If you re-weighted their 2020 poll by their 2016 weighting for education you'd have Trump and Biden within a point of each other in Kansas as opposed to the 7 point gap it currently is.
So we agreed. Our word should stand for something, indeed a lot, and we should not break it just because it is inconvenient. Whilst I did not agree with all of her premise the quotes from Mrs T by @Cyclefree yesterday were on point there. We are giving up something important here and we are doing it for reasons that seem to vary every time a government minister opens his mouth. It's just not worth the price that we will pay. It is a mistake and threatening this as a tactic to get the EU to be more flexible (a) probably won't work and (b) is just not worth the price.
However now the WA has been signed and passed as a lawyer he thinks we have to abide by it.
Plus Howard has history with Boris, forcing him to go to Liverpool to apologies for comments in a Spectator article and sacking him from his shadow Cabinet pre 2005 after he lied about an affair with Petronella Wyatt
Silver linings and all that.
They're doing it because Cummings wants the UK to be a completely unencumbered sandpit for his Odyssean Project.
Boris will never say no to him as he does all the thinking and all the work for him.
You could probably deliver a reasonably accurate home test for a tenth of the amount Boris is suggesting.
If Boris is bluffing and folds after doing this I would have zero respect for him.
This is extradition is to the States.
(And note that while 'paused', those who have been vaccinated are going to stay that way, so in that sense the trial is still running - just not, for now, vaccinating more subjects.)
Which really isn't the way to go about delivering mass testing.
There is the obvious problem of inaccurate test results too, particularly false negatives.
To drive any successful change project you need to hire the best talent, respect their abilities and inspire and lead them.
You don't drive performance by threatening and shouting at them and briefing that they're stupid /idiotic and for the chop. The only thing this drives is strange behaviours. The chief one being staying quiet and arsecovering: everyone tries to avoid or deflect blame and keeps their heads down. Stress levels skyrocket - so you don't get best attendance or performance - and ultimately people quit.
This is basic 101 stuff. So many people in Government have never learnt it.
Take your pick as to which one you think Boris is going to end up doing when it's explained to him the REAL options...
He just depends on him and as long as it matches his broad rhetoric - he's a happy man.
Professor Carl Heneghan (Oxon) said this week that the risks to under-50s from Covid are "almost zero". He wasn't just talking about deaths.
It contains lots of good articles but it's in a minddump of thinking and ranting.
He's clearly very bright but has no idea how to distill, communicate, inspire and therefore convert.
Which means he'll fail.
Search Eagles' post the other night about stepmons and read several posts around that time.
Embarrassing really.
I agree it would not be a perfect system but if it was 95% accurate it really should isolate the vast majority of the infected fairly quickly and get them out of general circulation.
We all have friends and those in Government will have them in influential places.
He's not doing it for the money. He's do it because it's his life obsession and pet theory.
After cheering at my telly thinking of the bank of Biden payout I woke up.
It'd most likely be a disaster electorally, but I'd love to see the UK do something ambitious like that. I also think it would be far more potentially beneficial than HS2 for example - I'd not like to state it as a fact but I believe that the Apollo programme was widely viewed as a big growth engine for the US tech sector.
Fundamental change of the government of the UK and the country?
Totally different kettle of fish.
I think the idea about "our word" and integrity is far more important than issues about the law.
However the EU have gone back on their word first, so all is fair in love and war as far as I'm concerned. The Agreement was reached in bad faith so therefore I'm OK with voiding it.
I can't imagine he wants that on his tombstone.
"Very likely you won't die" isn't necessarily equated to "harmless"
Using the latest numbers on the IFR variance with age (which is indeed hugely different for the young and the old) and the figures for the first 16,573 hospitalised in the UK to work out the proportion of each age that died to those who were hospitalised and recovered, and the best estimates I've found that 5% of all ages suffer "long Covid" (up to 3 months of symptoms) and a minority of those have on-running chronic damage (estimated at a fifth; could be higher and could be lower) and comparing that to the demographics of the UK in each age range:
That's not at all rigorous, of course, but should be broadly indicative.
A "harmless" virus that hospitalises a third of a million of the age range to whom it is "harmless", kills more than 16,000 of them, and leaves a further third of a million with on-going incapacity of some degree or another (and more than one and a half million incapacitated for up to a quarter of a year) - it does seem to be placing rather an excessive load on the word "harmless."
You'd be testing people who otherwise simply wouldn't be tested.
At the moment we test about 175k per day, and it takes 24 hurst's or more to get a result. So even if we're detecting 100% of those infected, that leaves enormous gaps.
If you were testing 10m a day with a cheap paper strip antigen test and detecting only 70% of those infected, you'd break far more transmission chains (and probably detect almost all of the most infectious).
And that technology already exists.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1304035238646034433?s=20