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.
Imagine what a tiny percentage of that it would cost to beef up making care homes secure and restricting travel to just essential and testing at airports..
@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?
Just the argument I would expect a bet-welcher to make.
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.
Multiple tests are being done at the moment, with the current PCR test. Hence the arguments about Tests vs People Tested.
@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?
They haven't gone back on their word. There is not a single person in the entire world, outside the loony Brexiteer brigade in England, who thinks they have. They have been entirely consistent, they signed the WA in good faith in the form that Boris personally asked them to do (which was a 'great deal', remember?), and now they not unreasonably are surprised that Boris wants to go back on it, having ratified it just eight months ago, presumably because he's finally got round to reading it.
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.
That is shocking from you David, the whole thing is overtly racist. You also know that the bill is likely to be heavily amended as it goes through parliament so we do not know the final outcome yet. It is only gathering existing laws and whilst some of it is extremely wooly and open to interpretation , if that i sorted it will be little different from what we currently have. I am no fan of it in its current state but unionists should be ashamed rather than supporting idiots like this.
@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?
A slide on a ppt presentation.
That was one of the three examples yes, off the top of my head.
Breaking your word here is bad - every bit as bad in my eyes is a government breaking its manifesto commitments like the ratification of Lisbon or Tuition Fees etc - breaking your word is wrong.
The EU have broken their word to us, so we need to do whatever is right for us now.
@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?
Please provide evidence outside of your own head / imagination that the EU has gone back on its word?
@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?
A slide on a ppt presentation.
That was one of the three examples yes, off the top of my head.
Breaking your word here is bad - every bit as bad in my eyes is a government breaking its manifesto commitments like the ratification of Lisbon or Tuition Fees etc - breaking your word is wrong.
The EU have broken their word to us, so we need to do whatever is right for us now.
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.
Imagine what a tiny percentage of that it would cost to beef up making care homes secure and restricting travel to just essential and testing at airports..
Indeed. Pay care home staff £100k pa pro rata to live in a bubble eight weeks on eight weeks off, test and quarantine at the end of each tenure. Or some such. According to Heneghan a policy along those lines saves 40% of all deaths.
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?
Sterling is down more than 3 cents since last Friday evening.
@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?
Please provide evidence outside of your own head / imagination that the EU has gone back on its word?
@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.
I just scroll past anything which includes him, once you realize he has to have the last word it makes it easier to ignore him.
@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?
A slide on a ppt presentation.
That was one of the three examples yes, off the top of my head.
Breaking your word here is bad - every bit as bad in my eyes is a government breaking its manifesto commitments like the ratification of Lisbon or Tuition Fees etc - breaking your word is wrong.
The EU have broken their word to us, so we need to do whatever is right for us now.
You're a funny guy.
Was it funny when the UK Government "went back on its word" and ratified the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum?
I have been re-watching The Avengers in Colour as it's been shown on ITV4 lately. Very sad at this news - a brilliant actress as well as a gorgeous woman and 60's icon.
I have been re-watching The Avengers in Colour as it's been shown on ITV4 lately. Very sad at this news - a brilliant actress as well as a gorgeous woman and 60's icon.
@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?
No it doesn't. This is not a playground. These are not children arguing about who started it. Just because someone else breaks the law does not entitle you or I or anyone else to do the same. That way leads to anarchy.
So yes, we all know that the EU has been dishonest in its dealings in the past, that it has broken its own rules and that it cannot be trusted. But that is why we are leaving. We should not be emulating them in their duplicity. We are supposed to be better than that.
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.
That is shocking from you David, the whole thing is overtly racist. You also know that the bill is likely to be heavily amended as it goes through parliament so we do not know the final outcome yet. It is only gathering existing laws and whilst some of it is extremely wooly and open to interpretation , if that i sorted it will be little different from what we currently have. I am no fan of it in its current state but unionists should be ashamed rather than supporting idiots like this.
Eh? I said I didn't like the picture or its racist overtones. So far as his bill is concerned he really needs to give up on part 2 altogether. It is, to quote a former Sheriff in Dundee in respect of the similar Offensive behaviour at Football legislation, "mince".
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
For all the attention our recent NBC News/Marist poll of Florida got showing Joe Biden slightly trailing President Trump among state Latino voters was an equally important finding that didn’t get as much notice.
Trump is losing Florida seniors by 1 point among likely voters (when he won them by 17 points in 2016, per the exit poll).
What’s more, Biden is getting 41 percent among all white voters in Florida (when Hillary Clinton got 32 percent of them in the Sunshine State).
For all the attention our recent NBC News/Marist poll of Florida got showing Joe Biden slightly trailing President Trump among state Latino voters was an equally important finding that didn’t get as much notice.
Trump is losing Florida seniors by 1 point among likely voters (when he won them by 17 points in 2016, per the exit poll).
What’s more, Biden is getting 41 percent among all white voters in Florida (when Hillary Clinton got 32 percent of them in the Sunshine State).
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will be relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Um, we don't grow enough to feed ourselves - and the things we export are items we usually don't want.
Nonetheless we can certainly eat more British produce, especially as British farmers will direct more production for the domestic market than export to the EU once tariffs come in next year as is likely.
You can still buy EU food if you want, it will just be more expensive.
One could almost say 'British food for British people' to misquote a former PM!
@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?
Please provide evidence outside of your own head / imagination that the EU has gone back on its word?
2017 - Canada type deal is possible - then it turns out it wasn't - that isn't going back on a word - it's more reality appearing. And you need to read that wikipedia article as you are making the assumption without evidence that the Lisbon Treaty is merely the European Convention reimplement and yet have provided zero evidence that that is the case.
I really should just ignore your ramblings as the ramblings of the rabid idiotic Boris fanatic that you have turned into since you spend your hours on this site not working.
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
Good luck supplying the whole of UK with "British fruit and veg" in January!!
I guess Raab is about to find out that we can't grow a great deal in the middle of UK winter. I mean, who knew?
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?
Can you post your strategy for separating families and workplaces where you don't have only young people or only fit people?
Families where Dad is older than you and Mum is younger, and so are the kids?
Workplaces where half are over 45 and half under?
Shops, restaurants, gyms, public transport - to be divided between under 45s and over 45s?
"Risk segmentation strategies" are pure fantasy and always will be.
Even if they weren't - filter out the non-obese (down to 71%) and the non-asthmatics and non-diabetics (about 85% of the remainder; down to 60%) and those with other co-mobidities (another 5% off), and you're down to 20 million people out of the 67 million of the UK.
You're trying to somehow give freedom to under a third of the country by some bizarre apartheid separation where you're shielding "only" two thirds of the country. Including the parents of loads of the first lot, who are somehow to be separated from their kids!
And, of course, the "long covid" and chronic conditions don't seem to have any requirement for co-morbidities. So a million of those 20 million - at least - will have lengthy incapacity, and quite a few of them will have that go on and on and on.
Not that I expect you to change your mind. You've decided that this MUST be a way and there MUST not be a danger to your chosen demographics. Reality, though, gives no craps over what you want to believe.
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.
That would depend on whether the false results are random, or determined by some secondary factor.
Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. Google and Facebook are some way behind and I would love to know what market Cummings thinks is big enough to allow another $trillion company to appear in.
For all the attention our recent NBC News/Marist poll of Florida got showing Joe Biden slightly trailing President Trump among state Latino voters was an equally important finding that didn’t get as much notice.
Trump is losing Florida seniors by 1 point among likely voters (when he won them by 17 points in 2016, per the exit poll).
What’s more, Biden is getting 41 percent among all white voters in Florida (when Hillary Clinton got 32 percent of them in the Sunshine State).
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.
I don't know what the precise specificity of the paper strip tests might be, but the Roche rapid antigen test, for example, claims specificity of 99.68%. If you accept a reasonable level of false negatives, it's possible to make the level of false positives very low indeed.
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
Good luck supplying the whole of UK with "British fruit and veg" in January!!
I guess Raab is about to find out that we can't grow a great deal in the middle of UK winter. I mean, who knew?
We are not banning EU imports, just making them more expensive, you can buy more cheaper, high quality British food instead
Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. Google and Facebook are some way behind and I would love to know what market Cummings thinks is big enough to allow another $trillion company to appear in.
Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. Google and Facebook are some way behind and I would love to know what market Cummings thinks is big enough to allow another $trillion company to appear in.
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.
Yes, it's the only feasible way to get someone to carry a chip around with them 24/7.
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.
Yes, it's the only feasible way to get someone to carry a chip around with them 24/7.
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
Good luck supplying the whole of UK with "British fruit and veg" in January!!
I guess Raab is about to find out that we can't grow a great deal in the middle of UK winter. I mean, who knew?
We are not banning EU imports, just making them more expensive, you can buy more cheaper, high quality British food instead
Higher food prices and less consumer choice. Other than furthering the career of Boris Johnson I still struggle to see what Brexit's point really is. I do try, I really do.
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.
Yes, it's the only feasible way to get someone to carry a chip around with them 24/7.
Youtube is awash with a strange advert for trackers you can put someone's pocket at the moment. Surveillance and control are some of the biggest, and arguably most understandable, fears of our networked time.
Spain has already overtaken us on deaths per head, so clearly Boris may have been slow off the blocks but is catching up fast if France and Switzerland in due course overtake us on deaths per head too
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
Good luck supplying the whole of UK with "British fruit and veg" in January!!
I guess Raab is about to find out that we can't grow a great deal in the middle of UK winter. I mean, who knew?
We are not banning EU imports, just making them more expensive, you can buy more cheaper, high quality British food instead
If British food is cheaper and higher quality why are we buying EU imports?
Could it be that the British food that is cheaper and higher quality doesn't exist as Britain hasn't been self sufficient in food since about 1850...
Spain has already overtaken us on deaths per head, so clearly Boris may have been slow off the blocks but is catching up fast if France and Switzerland in due course overtake us on deaths per head too
Catching what up fast? Don’t count your chickens this shit isn’t over yet.
Spain has already overtaken us on deaths per head, so clearly Boris may have been slow off the blocks but is catching up fast if France and Switzerland in due course overtake us on deaths per head too
Catching what up fast? Don’t count your chickens this shit isn’t over yet.
No but our relative performance on Covid deaths per head is improving, we were 2nd in Europe after Belgium, we are now 3rd after Spain overtook us and if France and Switzerland overtake us too we will fall back to 5th, a rather better performance from Boris for the UK
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
Good luck supplying the whole of UK with "British fruit and veg" in January!!
I guess Raab is about to find out that we can't grow a great deal in the middle of UK winter. I mean, who knew?
We are not banning EU imports, just making them more expensive, you can buy more cheaper, high quality British food instead
Higher food prices and less consumer choice. Other than furthering the career of Boris Johnson I still struggle to see what Brexit's point really is. I do try, I really do.
We're out the EU now - so that part is done. Right now we should be seeking a broad partnership and constructive relationship with them rather than the nonsense sabre rattling Cummings and Johnson are participating in to try and create another "us" vs "them" narrative.
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.
No problem. If the vast majority of those put into quarantine might be false positives and the overall positive rate is low, just quarantine all positives temporarily but then immediately test all positives again, and once more after that if they give a different result the second time around, as most will. It's a fairly standard quality assurance procedure.
Totally off topic, but for those who love in depth sports coverage and analysis, The Athletic have an offer of a £1 a month for next 12 months. Total bargain.
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
Good luck supplying the whole of UK with "British fruit and veg" in January!!
I guess Raab is about to find out that we can't grow a great deal in the middle of UK winter. I mean, who knew?
We are not banning EU imports, just making them more expensive, you can buy more cheaper, high quality British food instead
If British food is cheaper and higher quality why are we buying EU imports?
Could it be that the British food that is cheaper and higher quality doesn't exist as Britain hasn't been self sufficient in food since about 1850...
Traitor! Quisling!! Collaborator!!!
You are still correct, but that will not matter to the loonier Leavers...
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
Good luck supplying the whole of UK with "British fruit and veg" in January!!
I guess Raab is about to find out that we can't grow a great deal in the middle of UK winter. I mean, who knew?
We are not banning EU imports, just making them more expensive, you can buy more cheaper, high quality British food instead
If British food is cheaper and higher quality why are we buying EU imports?
Could it be that the British food that is cheaper and higher quality doesn't exist as Britain hasn't been self sufficient in food since about 1850...
Compared to more expensive EU produce from January once tariffs are likely imposed if no trade deal relatively speaking British produce will be cheaper and more of the high quality produce will shift to the domestic market
@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?
They haven't gone back on their word. There is not a single person in the entire world, outside the loony Brexiteer brigade in England, who thinks they have. They have been entirely consistent, they signed the WA in good faith in the form that Boris personally asked them to do (which was a 'great deal', remember?), and now they not unreasonably are surprised that Boris wants to go back on it, having ratified it just eight months ago, presumably because he's finally got round to reading it.
While I am in general agreement with you, it is not possible to argue that the EU have been entirely consistent, or in the slightest bit friendly in their negotiating.
Spain has already overtaken us on deaths per head, so clearly Boris may have been slow off the blocks but is catching up fast if France and Switzerland in due course overtake us on deaths per head too
Catching what up fast? Don’t count your chickens this shit isn’t over yet.
No but our relative performance on Covid deaths per head is improving, we were 2nd in Europe after Belgium, we are now 3rd after Spain overtook us and if France and Switzerland overtake us too we will fall back to 5th, a rather better performance from Boris for the UK
Spain has already overtaken us on deaths per head, so clearly Boris may have been slow off the blocks but is catching up fast if France and Switzerland in due course overtake us on deaths per head too
Catching what up fast? Don’t count your chickens this shit isn’t over yet.
No but our relative performance on Covid deaths per head is improving, we were 2nd in Europe after Belgium, we are now 3rd after Spain overtook us and if France and Switzerland overtake us too we will fall back to 5th, a rather better performance from Boris for the UK
Spain has already overtaken us on deaths per head, so clearly Boris may have been slow off the blocks but is catching up fast if France and Switzerland in due course overtake us on deaths per head too
Catching what up fast? Don’t count your chickens this shit isn’t over yet.
No but our relative performance on Covid deaths per head is improving, we were 2nd in Europe after Belgium, we are now 3rd after Spain overtook us and if France and Switzerland overtake us too we will fall back to 5th, a rather better performance from Boris for the UK
It’s not a competition
The left and anti Brexiteers were trashing Boris for our poor relative performance on Covid deaths recently so in a sense it is
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?
Can you post your strategy for separating families and workplaces where you don't have only young people or only fit people?
Families where Dad is older than you and Mum is younger, and so are the kids?
Workplaces where half are over 45 and half under?
Shops, restaurants, gyms, public transport - to be divided between under 45s and over 45s?
"Risk segmentation strategies" are pure fantasy and always will be.
Even if they weren't - filter out the non-obese (down to 71%) and the non-asthmatics and non-diabetics (about 85% of the remainder; down to 60%) and those with other co-mobidities (another 5% off), and you're down to 20 million people out of the 67 million of the UK.
You're trying to somehow give freedom to under a third of the country by some bizarre apartheid separation where you're shielding "only" two thirds of the country. Including the parents of loads of the first lot, who are somehow to be separated from their kids!
And, of course, the "long covid" and chronic conditions don't seem to have any requirement for co-morbidities. So a million of those 20 million - at least - will have lengthy incapacity, and quite a few of them will have that go on and on and on.
Not that I expect you to change your mind. You've decided that this MUST be a way and there MUST not be a danger to your chosen demographics. Reality, though, gives no craps over what you want to believe.
That's a very long, angry, intemperate rant to say: "I don't have the numbers you are asking for."
Here's a risk segmentation strategy by a very senior medical professional, Dr David Katz. You should give it a read, and consider it.
Moreover, I'm not at all sure your numbers on comorbidities are correct: 15 million people in England have preexisting conditions (many of them already in the older age groups), 40 million people in England are free from preexisting conditions.
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.
Yes, it's the only feasible way to get someone to carry a chip around with them 24/7.
Thank you all for your kind words. I’m in good spirits, just a bit bored.
You have my sympathy. A few years back I was in an isolation room during treatment for a week with no visitors as they suspected the hospital had norovirus (it didn't). I wasn't allowed out at all, even when the antibiotics had kicked in...
Spain has already overtaken us on deaths per head, so clearly Boris may have been slow off the blocks but is catching up fast if France and Switzerland in due course overtake us on deaths per head too
Catching what up fast? Don’t count your chickens this shit isn’t over yet.
No but our relative performance on Covid deaths per head is improving, we were 2nd in Europe after Belgium, we are now 3rd after Spain overtook us and if France and Switzerland overtake us too we will fall back to 5th, a rather better performance from Boris for the UK
It’s not a competition
It is when the UK is doing worse than everywhere else, it isn't when the UK is doing better. That's been clear for a while.
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
Perhaps HYUFD can have Woolton pie along with his broth ?
Comments
Breaking your word here is bad - every bit as bad in my eyes is a government breaking its manifesto commitments like the ratification of Lisbon or Tuition Fees etc - breaking your word is wrong.
The EU have broken their word to us, so we need to do whatever is right for us now.
And get better soon
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/840656/Political_Declaration_setting_out_the_framework_for_the_future_relationship_between_the_European_Union_and_the_United_Kingdom.pdf
Barnier is now saying the exact opposite.
Canada: https://twitter.com/Number10press/status/1229893225663602693
Lisbon Treaty they happily facilitated the UK, French and Dutch to go back on their words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
So yes, we all know that the EU has been dishonest in its dealings in the past, that it has broken its own rules and that it cannot be trusted. But that is why we are leaving. We should not be emulating them in their duplicity. We are supposed to be better than that.
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1304060362724118529
Trump is losing Florida seniors by 1 point among likely voters (when he won them by 17 points in 2016, per the exit poll).
What’s more, Biden is getting 41 percent among all white voters in Florida (when Hillary Clinton got 32 percent of them in the Sunshine State).
And it’s just not Florida.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/trump-s-defense-once-again-he-s-running-out-time-n1239739#anchor-AbigreasonwhyTrumpisbehindHesunderperformingwithwhitevoters
I wonder how many letters Brady has received this week?
You can still buy EU food if you want, it will just be more expensive.
One could almost say 'British food for British people' to misquote a former PM!
And you need to read that wikipedia article as you are making the assumption without evidence that the Lisbon Treaty is merely the European Convention reimplement and yet have provided zero evidence that that is the case.
I really should just ignore your ramblings as the ramblings of the rabid idiotic Boris fanatic that you have turned into since you spend your hours on this site not working.
I guess Raab is about to find out that we can't grow a great deal in the middle of UK winter. I mean, who knew?
Families where Dad is older than you and Mum is younger, and so are the kids?
Workplaces where half are over 45 and half under?
Shops, restaurants, gyms, public transport - to be divided between under 45s and over 45s?
"Risk segmentation strategies" are pure fantasy and always will be.
Even if they weren't - filter out the non-obese (down to 71%) and the non-asthmatics and non-diabetics (about 85% of the remainder; down to 60%) and those with other co-mobidities (another 5% off), and you're down to 20 million people out of the 67 million of the UK.
You're trying to somehow give freedom to under a third of the country by some bizarre apartheid separation where you're shielding "only" two thirds of the country. Including the parents of loads of the first lot, who are somehow to be separated from their kids!
And, of course, the "long covid" and chronic conditions don't seem to have any requirement for co-morbidities. So a million of those 20 million - at least - will have lengthy incapacity, and quite a few of them will have that go on and on and on.
Not that I expect you to change your mind. You've decided that this MUST be a way and there MUST not be a danger to your chosen demographics. Reality, though, gives no craps over what you want to believe.
Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. Google and Facebook are some way behind and I would love to know what market Cummings thinks is big enough to allow another $trillion company to appear in.
If you accept a reasonable level of false negatives, it's possible to make the level of false positives very low indeed.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1304052201548132352
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1304053339030777858
Could it be that the British food that is cheaper and higher quality doesn't exist as Britain hasn't been self sufficient in food since about 1850...
Whatever mess we end up in Boris is going to completely and utterly own it...
Then maybe the 'big one' ie hospitality closed from 10pm to 6am, all England, by end September?
You are still correct, but that will not matter to the loonier Leavers...
Brexit: UK likely to end up with Canadian-style deal, warns Barnier (2017)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/23/uk-likely-to-end-up-with-canadian-style-deal-warns-michel-barnier
Michel Barnier: UK can't have Canada trade deal with EU (Feb 2020)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662
https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1304066612069314566
Here's a risk segmentation strategy by a very senior medical professional, Dr David Katz. You should give it a read, and consider it.
https://davidkatzmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ravirs.katz_.3-22-20.pdf
Moreover, I'm not at all sure your numbers on comorbidities are correct: 15 million people in England have preexisting conditions (many of them already in the older age groups), 40 million people in England are free from preexisting conditions.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/time-think-differently/trends-disease-and-disability-long-term-conditions-multi-morbidity