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?
So you're still perfectly fine with the EU going back on their word?
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.
The end result his and Gove's time at education shows that he is either a liar who actually wanted greatly increased centralisation of education in Britain or that he is easily fooled by stupid civil servants.
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?
So you're still perfectly fine with the EU going back on their word?
1. You’ll have to explain to me what exactly the EU have “gone back on their word” on. Is this your claim that we were told we could have the exact same deal as Canada, or some other such nonsense?
2. What the EU do is none of my concern. I’m only interested in what we do, and how we present ourselves.
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.
Why don't you take my bet and then we'll have proof that you won't welsh on it (when you lose, which you will).
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
Ah-ha! They updated your software and you are back on message. Everything is right in the PB universe again...
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.
Could be the Cummings plan. Get the courts to block potential derogation from the WA thus leading to the great betrayal of errm... Boris' oven ready deal being implemented. The Tories are more rooked if the courts or lords let the proposed bill pass through...
The daily test idea is bonkers, but does that tell us the government doesn't actually expect a vaccine for a significant amount of time? Or are we going to do worst of both worlds, spend a fortune on a daily test system only to use it for a month or two. Surely they can't be that bonkers?
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.
Why don't you take my bet and then we'll have proof that you won't welsh on it (when you lose, which you will).
I won't take the bet because you're not offering both sides of the bet. I have said I think a deal is more likely than not and you're challenging me to bet there isn't a deal . . . why would I do that?
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
Ah-ha! They updated your software and you are back on message. Everything is right in the PB universe again...
Funnily enough, I was pondering this morning (don't ask) how similar in so many ways @HYUFD is to Candide. A very simple and direct view of the world with few complications or grey areas.
Not at all an insult. Happy to swap "simple" for "straightforward". He is a great contributor to this site.
Probably, Boris can then tell the DUP he offered them the vote to remove the Irish Sea Border if he needs their support in a 2024 hung parliament while also blaming MPs and the Lords if he has to stick to the WA terms
Probably, Boris can then tell the DUP he offered them the vote to remove the Irish Sea Border if he needs their support in a 2024 hung parliament while also blaming MPs if he has to stick to the WA terms
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.
What's his evidence ? What we do know is that there are 60k or more still suffering symptoms three months or more after being infected. We're only just starting to study this: https://www.oxfordhealth.nhs.uk/news/new-national-study-into-the-long-term-health-impacts-of-covid-19/ You may have noticed the recent news from the US where 15% of college footballers (by definition a young population) who'd been infected were suffering myocarditis.
I have no idea (and no one does) what is the proportion of those infected who will suffer long term health effects, or the extent of them, but on this, it's pretty clear that you either misunderstood what Heneghan was saying, or that he is simply wrong.
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 agree that our word is much more important here than this being "illegal". In what way do you say the EU have gone back on their word?
The WA had an undertaking by both parties to agree to agree a deal. Normally in law an agreement to agree is not enforceable but it can imply a legally enforceable obligation to negotiate in good faith. Are you saying that the EU haven't? In what way?
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.
Why don't you take my bet and then we'll have proof that you won't welsh on it (when you lose, which you will).
I won't take the bet because you're not offering both sides of the bet. I have said I think a deal is more likely than not and you're challenging me to bet there isn't a deal . . . why would I do that?
No you don't. You include an "Australia deal" as a deal. But it isn't a deal. It is a set of negotiations towards a deal.
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?
So you're still perfectly fine with the EU going back on their word?
Probably, Boris can then tell the DUP he offered them the vote to remove the Irish Sea Border if he needs their support in a 2024 hung parliament while also blaming MPs if he has to stick to the WA terms
Blaming his own MPs you mean?
A minority of them yes, it will be Labour and LD and SNP and SDLP MPs mainly who stop the amendment
Probably, Boris can then tell the DUP he offered them the vote to remove the Irish Sea Border if he needs their support in a 2024 hung parliament while also blaming MPs if he has to stick to the WA terms
Blaming his own MPs you mean?
A minority of them yes, it will be Labour and LD and SNP and SDLP MPs mainly who stop the amendment
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.
If you have the capability to test one-seventh of the population every day then you could deploy that to rapidly identify all the carriers of the virus, isolate them, and eliminate the virus from the country.
You could then deploy your testing capability at the ports and airports to keep the virus out of the country and the whole country could go back to normal.
Why would you plan on repeatedly testing everyone in the country and yet still allow the virus to circulate? What a waste of time that would be.
Probably, Boris can then tell the DUP he offered them the vote to remove the Irish Sea Border if he needs their support in a 2024 hung parliament while also blaming MPs if he has to stick to the WA terms
Blaming his own MPs you mean?
A minority of them yes, it will be Labour and LD and SNP and SDLP MPs mainly who stop the amendment
I don’t think Keir will fall into this trap.
He could do what some think Labour should have done on the WA and whip them to abstain.
According to the tweet replies, this represents a 10-15% decline in Trump’s lead amongst “Military Households”.
GOP affiliated military voters have returned 24 ballots to the Democrats 16 in North Carolina so far ! I think the GOP will always have a military lead (For the forseeable future anyway).
A swing in these voters helps North Carolina for Biden in particular:
The 10 states with the highest active duty military populations are:
California (159,380) Virginia (127,981) Texas (123,879) North Carolina (116,114) Georgia (74,235) Washington (62,409) Florida (57,558) Hawaii (47,531) Kentucky (45,568) Colorado (36,998)
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.
What's his evidence ? What we do know is that there are 60k or more still suffering symptoms three months or more after being infected. We're only just starting to study this: https://www.oxfordhealth.nhs.uk/news/new-national-study-into-the-long-term-health-impacts-of-covid-19/ You may have noticed the recent news from the US where 15% of college footballers (by definition a young population) who'd been infected were suffering myocarditis.
I have no idea (and no one does) what is the proportion of those infected who will suffer long term health effects, or the extent of them, but on this, it's pretty clear that you either misunderstood what Heneghan was saying, or that he is simply wrong.
Probably, Boris can then tell the DUP he offered them the vote to remove the Irish Sea Border if he needs their support in a 2024 hung parliament while also blaming MPs if he has to stick to the WA terms
Blaming his own MPs you mean?
A minority of them yes, it will be Labour and LD and SNP and SDLP MPs mainly who stop the amendment
I don’t think Keir will fall into this trap.
He could do what some think Labour should have done on the WA and whip them to abstain.
Yeah, this should definitely be on the table as a possibility. Perhaps try to amend it first.
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
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.
If you have the capability to test one-seventh of the population every day then you could deploy that to rapidly identify all the carriers of the virus, isolate them, and eliminate the virus from the country.
You could then deploy your testing capability at the ports and airports to keep the virus out of the country and the whole country could go back to normal.
Why would you plan on repeatedly testing everyone in the country and yet still allow the virus to circulate? What a waste of time that would be.
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.
But he always falls flat on his face... and leaves it to everybody else to pick up the pieces, while with one bound he is free to carry on with his next escapade.
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.
Spoke to my consultant this morning who is a stroke specialist. His view is the Government should remove the restrictions for anyone under 55 and tell everyone else to take the proper precautions.
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)
Trouble is this has moved way beyond funny. The conspiracy theories that are circulating widely at the moment are extremely worrying (by which I mean what they are claiming and the fact people are taking them seriously is very worrying rather than worrying because they might be true). Even ignoring the free rider effect other posters are discussing, I can see a huge backlash against any attempt to force people to have the vaccine.
I had a chat with a villager the other week who seemed bright enough but is convinced that any vaccine will have a chip in it!? implanted by Bill Gates. Seriously.
That is a mild one. If you remember back when the smallpox vaccinations were going on, some groups in places like Pakistan were claiming the vaccines were actually designed to make everyone infertile. I never thought I would see that one emerge in a supposedly scientifically based western country but it is becoming more common by the day on both sides of the Atlantic. And even that is mild compared to some. One of my clients yesterday was happily telling me it is part of a plan to reduce world population to 500 million people. And this guy, no joke, has a PhD and runs a successful science/engineering based consultancy.
+1 - although there would be value in trying to force a Government to stick to it's manifesto promises, with this clusterfuck of a law - it's best to let Boris do what he wants so that he owns it.
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
A war with “the establishment” only strengthens the 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
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.
What's his evidence ? What we do know is that there are 60k or more still suffering symptoms three months or more after being infected. We're only just starting to study this: https://www.oxfordhealth.nhs.uk/news/new-national-study-into-the-long-term-health-impacts-of-covid-19/ You may have noticed the recent news from the US where 15% of college footballers (by definition a young population) who'd been infected were suffering myocarditis.
I have no idea (and no one does) what is the proportion of those infected who will suffer long term health effects, or the extent of them, but on this, it's pretty clear that you either misunderstood what Heneghan was saying, or that he is simply wrong.
I had a chat with a villager the other week who seemed bright enough but is convinced that any vaccine will have a chip in it!? implanted by Bill Gates. Seriously.
That is a mild one. If you remember back when the smallpox vaccinations were going on, some groups in places like Pakistan were claiming the vaccines were actually designed to make everyone infertile. I never thought I would see that one emerge in a supposedly scientifically based western country but it is becoming more common by the day on both sides of the Atlantic. And even that is mild compared to some. One of my clients yesterday was happily telling me it is part of a plan to reduce world population to 500 million people. And this guy, no joke, has a PhD and runs a successful science/engineering based consultancy.
Funnily enough, the people who think things like that tend to be the ones who think there ought to be a plan to reduce world population to 500 million people.
According to the tweet replies, this represents a 10-15% decline in Trump’s lead amongst “Military Households”.
GOP affiliated military voters have returned 24 ballots to the Democrats 16 in North Carolina so far ! I think the GOP will always have a military lead (For the forseeable future anyway).
A swing in these voters helps North Carolina for Biden in particular:
The 10 states with the highest active duty military populations are:
California (159,380) Virginia (127,981) Texas (123,879) North Carolina (116,114) Georgia (74,235) Washington (62,409) Florida (57,558) Hawaii (47,531) Kentucky (45,568) Colorado (36,998)
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.
If you have the capability to test one-seventh of the population every day then you could deploy that to rapidly identify all the carriers of the virus, isolate them, and eliminate the virus from the country.
You could then deploy your testing capability at the ports and airports to keep the virus out of the country and the whole country could go back to normal.
Why would you plan on repeatedly testing everyone in the country and yet still allow the virus to circulate? What a waste of time that would be.
Its possible that such a scheme could work as test and trace on steroids and rapidly remove Covid from the population removing the need for continued testing but its equally possible it would not and that pockets of infection would remain. Very much depends on take up.
The daily test idea is bonkers, but does that tell us the government doesn't actually expect a vaccine for a significant amount of time? Or are we going to do worst of both worlds, spend a fortune on a daily test system only to use it for a month or two. Surely they can't be that bonkers?
The idea itself isn't bonkers; the proposed cost is.
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
It's a hard one but Boris wants a battle for distraction purposes. I actually suspect the best approach is to say this is a stupid idea but we can't stop it so get on with it is the only solution.
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.
What's his evidence ? What we do know is that there are 60k or more still suffering symptoms three months or more after being infected. We're only just starting to study this: https://www.oxfordhealth.nhs.uk/news/new-national-study-into-the-long-term-health-impacts-of-covid-19/ You may have noticed the recent news from the US where 15% of college footballers (by definition a young population) who'd been infected were suffering myocarditis.
I have no idea (and no one does) what is the proportion of those infected who will suffer long term health effects, or the extent of them, but on this, it's pretty clear that you either misunderstood what Heneghan was saying, or that he is simply wrong.
Nope – I understood what he was saying. I'm more inclined to pay heed to the words of the Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford than you.
But here goes:
Can you estimate the risk of a 30-year-old catching the virus in the first place, then becoming ill from it, as a percentage risk?
I think you will find, once you factor in the fairly low risk of actually catching the bloody thing in the first place, that percentage will indeed be almost zero.
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 agree that our word is much more important here than this being "illegal". In what way do you say the EU have gone back on their word?
The WA had an undertaking by both parties to agree to agree a deal. Normally in law an agreement to agree is not enforceable but it can imply a legally enforceable obligation to negotiate in good faith. Are you saying that the EU haven't? In what way?
Yes I am saying the EU haven't. They have operated in bad faith.
The Political Declaration commits that the level playing field "The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties." Now the EU is insisting that the level playing field must be the same regardless of the future relationship, despite the agreement saying the opposite.
Operation Moonshot is completely absurd. Quite apart from the ludicrous cost, there is no way that it can work given the number of false positives it would throw up.
Don't like the racist overtones of that but let's face Sharia law is a lot better alternative than his Hatred Bill which is opposed by pretty much everyone but with which he is still persisting.
More Unionist 'sarcasm and satire'. Oh, my aching sides.
Operation Moonshot is completely absurd. Quite apart from the ludicrous cost, there is no way that it can work given the number of false positives it would throw up.
False positives aren't the issue (And are difficult to achieve since you need actual virus for the test to come back positive), a couple of false negatives at a packed concert say are the big potential issue.
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.
Spoke to my consultant this morning who is a stroke specialist. His view is the Government should remove the restrictions for anyone under 55 and tell everyone else to take the proper precautions.
That doesn't surprise me.
I have three friends who work in the NHS in medical fields – all three of them agree broadly with your consultant. It appears to be a fairly commonly held view in the world of medicine.
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
He has posted some updated totals for today but not this breakdown which I thought was useful (and which was from yesterday). It is only small totals but most of the Democrats who have had their mail in ballots were early day voters in 2016 (58%). Only 3% were registered in 2016 but didn't vote and 21% were registered post-2016. For the Republicans, 1/3 were mail by ballot voters, 5% were registered in 2016 but didn't vote and 26% were not registered before 2016.
My guess from the chart is that the massive uplift in mail in ballot requests in NC is pulling in existing voters (bar those who weren't registered) rather than those who stayed away last time.
According to the tweet replies, this represents a 10-15% decline in Trump’s lead amongst “Military Households”.
GOP affiliated military voters have returned 24 ballots to the Democrats 16 in North Carolina so far ! I think the GOP will always have a military lead (For the forseeable future anyway).
A swing in these voters helps North Carolina for Biden in particular:
The 10 states with the highest active duty military populations are:
California (159,380) Virginia (127,981) Texas (123,879) North Carolina (116,114) Georgia (74,235) Washington (62,409) Florida (57,558) Hawaii (47,531) Kentucky (45,568) Colorado (36,998)
So none in the Midwest but it might help Biden a bit in Texas, NC and Florida
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.
“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”
Quite. Here's a recent paper which backs up that point.
Frequency and accuracy of proactive testing for COVID-19 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.05.20188839v1.full.pdf ...Table 5 shows that a test with very low sensitivity, if it can be administered every day with results appearing immediately, can drastically reduce the exposure rate. Indeed if those who test positive are quarantined (isolated) immediately on taking a test administered daily, with sensitivity of 50%, the number of days of contagious exposure for infected persons is reduced by almost 80%. This compares with a reduction of about 60% that results from testing twice a week with a test with sensitivity of 90%...
Number, speed and frequency of tests are every bit as important metrics as accuracy. Each makes a difference to outcomes. For some reason the public health scientists/advisers seem to make accuracy the single most important metric.
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
I’m sorry but you look ridiculous right now. You’re whining about a flag on a powerpoint slide, and using it to justify ripping up our reputation for keeping our word.
He has posted some updated totals for today but not this breakdown which I thought was useful (and which was from yesterday). It is only small totals but most of the Democrats who have had their mail in ballots were early day voters in 2016 (58%). Only 3% were registered in 2016 but didn't vote and 21% were registered post-2016. For the Republicans, 1/3 were mail by ballot voters, 5% were registered in 2016 but didn't vote and 26% were not registered before 2016.
My guess from the chart is that the massive uplift in mail in ballot requests in NC is pulling in existing voters (bar those who weren't registered) rather than those who stayed away last time.
Sorry, I should have noted - the numbers are for those who have had their maill in ballot accepted (which is only 1,278), not those who have sent requests.
Probably, Boris can then tell the DUP he offered them the vote to remove the Irish Sea Border if he needs their support in a 2024 hung parliament while also blaming MPs if he has to stick to the WA terms
Blaming his own MPs you mean?
A minority of them yes, it will be Labour and LD and SNP and SDLP MPs mainly who stop the amendment
I don’t think Keir will fall into this trap.
Starmer is hardly going to vote for the amendment to breach the WA is he
Probably, Boris can then tell the DUP he offered them the vote to remove the Irish Sea Border if he needs their support in a 2024 hung parliament while also blaming MPs if he has to stick to the WA terms
Blaming his own MPs you mean?
A minority of them yes, it will be Labour and LD and SNP and SDLP MPs mainly who stop the amendment
I don’t think Keir will fall into this trap.
Starmer is hardly going to vote for the amendment to breach the WA is he
No but as we have discussed, he can whip Labour to abstain.
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
I’m sorry but you look ridiculous right now. You’re whining about a flag on a powerpoint slide, and using it to justify ripping up our reputation for keeping our word.
It takes two to tango, if they won't keep their word then why should we? After they broke it first.
Besides its far from the first time with Europe the word hasn't been kept. In 2015 the Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to not ratify the EU Constitution without hold a referendum first. France and the Netherland both held referendums on the Constitution and both rejected it. So instead Giscard's Constitution was rebranded to the Lisbon Treaty and ratified and became your fabled "international law" without approval by the voters of the UK, the Netherlands or France. The UK Government went back on its word then, its word to its own voters. The EU went back on its word then too.
If Cummings / Johnson think the Lords can be framed as "blocking Brexit" by blocking the legislation, they may come easily unstuck. All Starmer needs to say is that the law change is in fact about blocking the Brexit process, starting the parliamentary shenanigans again, and generally "not getting Brexit done".
"Why are they putting this back through parliament when they told us the deal was done ? Why can't the government complete on any of its objectives ? ". Etc.
He has posted some updated totals for today but not this breakdown which I thought was useful (and which was from yesterday). It is only small totals but most of the Democrats who have had their mail in ballots were early day voters in 2016 (58%). Only 3% were registered in 2016 but didn't vote and 21% were registered post-2016. For the Republicans, 1/3 were mail by ballot voters, 5% were registered in 2016 but didn't vote and 26% were not registered before 2016.
My guess from the chart is that the massive uplift in mail in ballot requests in NC is pulling in existing voters (bar those who weren't registered) rather than those who stayed away last time.
Thanks, this is new info
So 166 NEW Dems 69 NEW independents and 33 NEW GOP
Obviously it won't make any odds currently but if it extrapolates forward the numbers look good for the Democrats
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
I’m sorry but you look ridiculous right now. You’re whining about a flag on a powerpoint slide, and using it to justify ripping up our reputation for keeping our word.
It takes two to tango, if they won't keep their word then why should we? After they broke it first.
Besides its far from the first time with Europe the word hasn't been kept. In 2015 the Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to not ratify the EU Constitution without hold a referendum first. France and the Netherland both held referendums on the Constitution and both rejected it. So instead Giscard's Constitution was rebranded to the Lisbon Treaty and ratified and became your fabled "international law" without approval by the voters of the UK, the Netherlands or France. The UK Government went back on its word then, its word to its own voters. The EU went back on its word then too.
Integrity goes both ways.
"The EU" in that sentence presumably means the Labour government of the UK? This is a bizarre example of projection.
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
I’m sorry but you look ridiculous right now. You’re whining about a flag on a powerpoint slide, and using it to justify ripping up our reputation for keeping our word.
Mate it's a wind up. He is probably high-fiving the people looking over his shoulder at the way we all jump at his posts.
Because to be as serious as he says he is being simply is not possible with any intelligence above that of a six-year old. In fact I think Philip has a child; perhaps he is letting them post. Super-bright for their age but not something we should be responding to.
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
I’m sorry but you look ridiculous right now. You’re whining about a flag on a powerpoint slide, and using it to justify ripping up our reputation for keeping our word.
It takes two to tango, if they won't keep their word then why should we? After they broke it first.
Besides its far from the first time with Europe the word hasn't been kept. In 2015 the Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to not ratify the EU Constitution without hold a referendum first. France and the Netherland both held referendums on the Constitution and both rejected it. So instead Giscard's Constitution was rebranded to the Lisbon Treaty and ratified and became your fabled "international law" without approval by the voters of the UK, the Netherlands or France. The UK Government went back on its word then, its word to its own voters. The EU went back on its word then too.
Integrity goes both ways.
"The EU" in that sentence presumably means the Labour government of the UK? This is a bizarre example of projection.
Yes the Labour government - and the French and Dutch governments too. And the EU was keen and happy to facilitate that.
If you are against breaking your word in general - as I am - then that is absolutely no more acceptable than what is happening here today.
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."
The vast majority of those who become ill in the younger age groups will have preexisting conditions, obesity or some other comorbidity – and would therefore be shielded under any risk segmentation strategy.
Can you post the figures for fit and healthy under 45s?
Operation Moonshot is completely absurd. Quite apart from the ludicrous cost, there is no way that it can work given the number of false positives it would throw up.
False positives aren't the issue (And are difficult to achieve since you need actual virus for the test to come back positive), a couple of false negatives at a packed concert say are the big potential issue.
False positives are an issue. Even with a very small proportion of false positives, with a very frequent test you can end up putting a surprisingly large proportion of the population into quarantine unnecessarily. A 1% false positive rate (which would be very good) on a test done on 10 million people -> 100,000 A DAY put into quarantine, presumably for 10 days, possibly also their family members etc. If the true rate is relatively low, then the vast majority of those put into quarantine might be false positives.
This is actually an exceptionally rare case where, broadly, I agree with Trump. He's even expressed it more articulately and broadly persuasively than usual.
I see on Scotland have gone for rule of 6, but under 12s don't count. Clearly we are still playing the silly games of having to have different rules to appear different.
Operation Moonshot is completely absurd. Quite apart from the ludicrous cost, there is no way that it can work given the number of false positives it would throw up.
False positives aren't the issue (And are difficult to achieve since you need actual virus for the test to come back positive), a couple of false negatives at a packed concert say are the big potential issue.
False positives are an issue. Even with a very small proportion of false positives, with a very frequent test you can end up putting a surprisingly large proportion of the population into quarantine unnecessarily. A 1% false positive rate (which would be very good) on a test done on 10 million people -> 100,000 A DAY put into quarantine, presumably for 10 days, possibly also their family members etc. If the true rate is relatively low, then the vast majority of those put into quarantine might be false positives.
Bayes is the false positive friend with mass testing but the consequences of false negatives are more serious in terms of potential viral spread. If there were zero false negatives the risk of spread at an event would be zero, wouldn't be the case for zero FPs.
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
I’m sorry but you look ridiculous right now. You’re whining about a flag on a powerpoint slide, and using it to justify ripping up our reputation for keeping our word.
Mate it's a wind up. He is probably high-fiving the people looking over his shoulder at the way we all jump at his posts.
Because to be as serious as he says he is being simply is not possible with any intelligence above that of a six-year old. In fact I think Philip has a child; perhaps he is letting them post. Super-bright for their age but not something we should be responding to.
How about try addressing the points? I've given three separate examples of the EU going back on its word - two relevant to now, one deliberately facilitating the UK, French and Dutch government doing so. Some consistency would be good here, at least criticise the EU for going back on its own word and facilitating its member states doing so.
Or is it only when the UK does so that it matters? And how does the current instance matter any more than the Lisbon instance?
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.
It is all about as coherent as his blog.
I've read his blog (although I was out of breath at the end).
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.
And that's Dom's problem- which makes it all of our problem at the moment.
When he says that the UK power system favours smooth charmers who have never had an original thought in their heads over spiky misfits with brilliant ideas, he has a point.
The trouble is that for every game-changing brilliant spiky misfit idea, there are nine, or ninety nine terrible spiky misfit ideas. Which is why installing Dom as the Prime Minister's main brain is going as well as it is.
His ideas, like his blog, really need an editor, and Dom has determinedly made sure that they don't get one.
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
Sorry, but this is utter tosh. The bits of the agreement which Boris is wanting to renege on are those which to which he formally agreed as a fallback position in the event that there's no deal, so the PD is irrelevant. Of course everyone now agrees that the deal Boris agreed to in that respect was very poor, but that's hardly the EU's fault.
Operation Moonshot is completely absurd. Quite apart from the ludicrous cost, there is no way that it can work given the number of false positives it would throw up.
False positives aren't the issue (And are difficult to achieve since you need actual virus for the test to come back positive), a couple of false negatives at a packed concert say are the big potential issue.
False positives are an issue. Even with a very small proportion of false positives, with a very frequent test you can end up putting a surprisingly large proportion of the population into quarantine unnecessarily. A 1% false positive rate (which would be very good) on a test done on 10 million people -> 100,000 A DAY put into quarantine, presumably for 10 days, possibly also their family members etc. If the true rate is relatively low, then the vast majority of those put into quarantine might be false positives.
What's the chance someone gets three or four false positives in a row? If you go a few days with a negative result after a positive one then it's back to normal.
Operation Moonshot is completely absurd. Quite apart from the ludicrous cost, there is no way that it can work given the number of false positives it would throw up.
False positives aren't the issue (And are difficult to achieve since you need actual virus for the test to come back positive), a couple of false negatives at a packed concert say are the big potential issue.
False positives are an issue. Even with a very small proportion of false positives, with a very frequent test you can end up putting a surprisingly large proportion of the population into quarantine unnecessarily. A 1% false positive rate (which would be very good) on a test done on 10 million people -> 100,000 A DAY put into quarantine, presumably for 10 days, possibly also their family members etc. If the true rate is relatively low, then the vast majority of those put into quarantine might be false positives.
The key to this is multiple tests, rapidity and not depending on throat swabs.
So a 20 minute test, based of saliva, which is cheap enough and requires little/no laboratory support, would be useful.
Which is exactly what is being trialled at the moment.
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
Sorry, but this is utter tosh. The bits of the agreement which Boris is wanting to renege on are those which to which he formally agreed as a fallback position in the event that there's no deal, so the PD is irrelevant. Of course everyone now agrees that the deal Boris agreed to in that respect was very poor, but that's hardly the EU's fault.
So you're OK with the EU repeatedly going back on its word then?
You just don't think that it entitles us to do the same?
Sterling down over a cent against the euro in the last three hours. Markets not happy about Boris trashing UK's reputation for negotiating in good faith?
Operation Moonshot is completely absurd. Quite apart from the ludicrous cost, there is no way that it can work given the number of false positives it would throw up.
False positives aren't the issue (And are difficult to achieve since you need actual virus for the test to come back positive), a couple of false negatives at a packed concert say are the big potential issue.
False positives are an issue. Even with a very small proportion of false positives, with a very frequent test you can end up putting a surprisingly large proportion of the population into quarantine unnecessarily. A 1% false positive rate (which would be very good) on a test done on 10 million people -> 100,000 A DAY put into quarantine, presumably for 10 days, possibly also their family members etc. If the true rate is relatively low, then the vast majority of those put into quarantine might be false positives.
Bayes is the false positive friend with mass testing but the consequences of false negatives are more serious in terms of potential viral spread. If there were zero false negatives the risk of spread at an event would be zero, wouldn't be the case for zero FPs.
Actually I'm not even that is right, because a false negative might cause you to miss a flare-up at an early stage, but you'd still soon detect it in the first batch of people infected, which might be enough to whack that particular mole.
Modelling this stuff is quite complicated, but the epidemiologists don't seem very convinced.
Are we seriously talking about spunking £100bn on something we might need for less than 6 months? The government has taken leave of any remaining sense it had. This is ridiculous. It's our taxes that will pay for this pointless rubbish. This can't be a serious consideration. Even at £10bn it's a waste of money.
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
I’m sorry but you look ridiculous right now. You’re whining about a flag on a powerpoint slide, and using it to justify ripping up our reputation for keeping our word.
Mate it's a wind up. He is probably high-fiving the people looking over his shoulder at the way we all jump at his posts.
Because to be as serious as he says he is being simply is not possible with any intelligence above that of a six-year old. In fact I think Philip has a child; perhaps he is letting them post. Super-bright for their age but not something we should be responding to.
How about try addressing the points? I've given three separate examples of the EU going back on its word - two relevant to now, one deliberately facilitating the UK, French and Dutch government doing so. Some consistency would be good here, at least criticise the EU for going back on its own word and facilitating its member states doing so.
Or is it only when the UK does so that it matters? And how does the current instance matter any more than the Lisbon instance?
Operation Moonshot is completely absurd. Quite apart from the ludicrous cost, there is no way that it can work given the number of false positives it would throw up.
False positives aren't the issue (And are difficult to achieve since you need actual virus for the test to come back positive), a couple of false negatives at a packed concert say are the big potential issue.
False positives are an issue. Even with a very small proportion of false positives, with a very frequent test you can end up putting a surprisingly large proportion of the population into quarantine unnecessarily. A 1% false positive rate (which would be very good) on a test done on 10 million people -> 100,000 A DAY put into quarantine, presumably for 10 days, possibly also their family members etc. If the true rate is relatively low, then the vast majority of those put into quarantine might be false positives.
The key to this is multiple tests, rapidity and not depending on throat swabs.
So a 20 minute test, based of saliva, which is cheap enough and requires little/no laboratory support, would be useful.
Which is exactly what is being trialled at the moment.
If you have a positive test, probably best to have another couple of tests. If both of those show up negative then the first was likely a false positive ? With a true positive that'd be unlikely.
Comments
2. What the EU do is none of my concern. I’m only interested in what we do, and how we present ourselves.
Get the courts to block potential derogation from the WA thus leading to the great betrayal of errm... Boris' oven ready deal being implemented.
The Tories are more rooked if the courts or lords let the proposed bill pass through...
Not at all an insult. Happy to swap "simple" for "straightforward". He is a great contributor to this site.
What we do know is that there are 60k or more still suffering symptoms three months or more after being infected. We're only just starting to study this:
https://www.oxfordhealth.nhs.uk/news/new-national-study-into-the-long-term-health-impacts-of-covid-19/
You may have noticed the recent news from the US where 15% of college footballers (by definition a young population) who'd been infected were suffering myocarditis.
I have no idea (and no one does) what is the proportion of those infected who will suffer long term health effects, or the extent of them, but on this, it's pretty clear that you either misunderstood what Heneghan was saying, or that he is simply wrong.
The WA had an undertaking by both parties to agree to agree a deal. Normally in law an agreement to agree is not enforceable but it can imply a legally enforceable obligation to negotiate in good faith. Are you saying that the EU haven't? In what way?
Though he might have got it from Cummings.
You could then deploy your testing capability at the ports and airports to keep the virus out of the country and the whole country could go back to normal.
Why would you plan on repeatedly testing everyone in the country and yet still allow the virus to circulate? What a waste of time that would be.
I think the GOP will always have a military lead (For the forseeable future anyway).
A swing in these voters helps North Carolina for Biden in particular:
The 10 states with the highest active duty military populations are:
California (159,380)
Virginia (127,981)
Texas (123,879)
North Carolina (116,114)
Georgia (74,235)
Washington (62,409)
Florida (57,558)
Hawaii (47,531)
Kentucky (45,568)
Colorado (36,998)
https://www.ibj.com/articles/former-virus-epicenter-finds-half-of-survivors-still-not-fully-recovered
Washington Post article 9 September on follow up survey in Bergamo, Italy. 50% of survivors still seriously fckd p.
I don't think there are any good statistics yet, though.
And of course the 'long term' only extends back to spring.
And as you could argue the damage has already been done not stopping it could be the best approach
https://twitter.com/TheScepticIsle/status/1304046107744501762
As a country though we are completely screwed = I'm just glad I create and sell software so can escape if need be.
But here goes:
Can you estimate the risk of a 30-year-old catching the virus in the first place, then becoming ill from it, as a percentage risk?
I think you will find, once you factor in the fairly low risk of actually catching the bloody thing in the first place, that percentage will indeed be almost zero.
The EU said years ago that the UK could go for a Canada style free trade agreement, though at the time when May did not want to go for it. The UK has decided to go for that now . . . and then only in February after the Withdrawal Agreement was agreed and ratified did the EU say that wasn't possible, which of course it is. https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/19/uk-blasts-eu-s-barnier-for-rejecting-post-brexit-canada-style-trade-deal
https://twitter.com/Number10press/status/1229893225663602693
The Political Declaration commits that the level playing field "The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties." Now the EU is insisting that the level playing field must be the same regardless of the future relationship, despite the agreement saying the opposite.
More Unionist 'sarcasm and satire'. Oh, my aching sides.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
I have three friends who work in the NHS in medical fields – all three of them agree broadly with your consultant. It appears to be a fairly commonly held view in the world of medicine.
I should add: Get well soon sir.
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
https://twitter.com/OldNorthStPol/status/1303681508646019075?s=20
He has posted some updated totals for today but not this breakdown which I thought was useful (and which was from yesterday). It is only small totals but most of the Democrats who have had their mail in ballots were early day voters in 2016 (58%). Only 3% were registered in 2016 but didn't vote and 21% were registered post-2016. For the Republicans, 1/3 were mail by ballot voters, 5% were registered in 2016 but didn't vote and 26% were not registered before 2016.
My guess from the chart is that the massive uplift in mail in ballot requests in NC is pulling in existing voters (bar those who weren't registered) rather than those who stayed away last time.
Here's a recent paper which backs up that point.
Frequency and accuracy of proactive testing for COVID-19
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.05.20188839v1.full.pdf
...Table 5 shows that a test with very low sensitivity, if it can be administered every day with results appearing immediately, can drastically reduce the exposure rate. Indeed if those who test positive are quarantined (isolated) immediately on taking a test administered daily, with sensitivity of 50%, the number of days of contagious exposure for infected persons is reduced by almost 80%. This compares with a reduction of about 60% that results from testing twice a week with a test with sensitivity of 90%...
Number, speed and frequency of tests are every bit as important metrics as accuracy. Each makes a difference to outcomes.
For some reason the public health scientists/advisers seem to make accuracy the single most important metric.
Besides its far from the first time with Europe the word hasn't been kept. In 2015 the Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to not ratify the EU Constitution without hold a referendum first. France and the Netherland both held referendums on the Constitution and both rejected it. So instead Giscard's Constitution was rebranded to the Lisbon Treaty and ratified and became your fabled "international law" without approval by the voters of the UK, the Netherlands or France. The UK Government went back on its word then, its word to its own voters. The EU went back on its word then too.
Integrity goes both ways.
"Why are they putting this back through parliament when they told us the deal was done ? Why can't the government complete on any of its objectives ? ". Etc.
So 166 NEW Dems
69 NEW independents and
33 NEW GOP
Obviously it won't make any odds currently but if it extrapolates forward the numbers look good for the Democrats
Too soon.
Because to be as serious as he says he is being simply is not possible with any intelligence above that of a six-year old. In fact I think Philip has a child; perhaps he is letting them post. Super-bright for their age but not something we should be responding to.
If you are against breaking your word in general - as I am - then that is absolutely no more acceptable than what is happening here today.
Can you post the figures for fit and healthy under 45s?
2579 Dem
1257 Ind
508 GOP
12 other.
Headline - 8
Seven days - 8
Yesterday - 1
Or is it only when the UK does so that it matters? And how does the current instance matter any more than the Lisbon instance?
When he says that the UK power system favours smooth charmers who have never had an original thought in their heads over spiky misfits with brilliant ideas, he has a point.
The trouble is that for every game-changing brilliant spiky misfit idea, there are nine, or ninety nine terrible spiky misfit ideas. Which is why installing Dom as the Prime Minister's main brain is going as well as it is.
His ideas, like his blog, really need an editor, and Dom has determinedly made sure that they don't get one.
So a 20 minute test, based of saliva, which is cheap enough and requires little/no laboratory support, would be useful.
Which is exactly what is being trialled at the moment.
You just don't think that it entitles us to do the same?
Modelling this stuff is quite complicated, but the epidemiologists don't seem very convinced.
You’ll all have to put up with incessant posting for another 24 hours.