Categories
Rating Boris and Keir – from the latest Lord Ashcroft research – politicalbetting.com
Rating Boris and Keir – from the latest Lord Ashcroft research – politicalbetting.com
From latest @LordAshcroft research. pic.twitter.com/1Rc9m4smDB
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If one word could define Johnson it is "smug."
As for "out of touch". Wearing the hi-viz every day must be doing the trick for Johnson.
I'm not given to despondency but this news, late at night, is the last I wanted to hear.
--AS
Relevant bit
“People keep talking about ‘time to vaccinate the whole population’, but that is misguided,” she said. “There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”
That is as coherent as a White House medical bulletin, and as honest. She isn't clarifying a point on which people are misguided, she is announcing a huge policy shift from vaccination as key to herd immunity, to vaccination as just one more weapon in the fight.
David Nabarro, special envoy to the World Health Organization on Covid-19, also told the FT that addressing the coronavirus crisis was “not going to be a case of everyone getting vaccinated”.
“There will be a definite analysis of who is the priority for the vaccine, based on where they live, their occupation and their age bracket,” he said. “We’re not fundamentally using the vaccine to create population immunity, we’re just changing the likelihood people will get harmed or hurt. It will be strategic.”
Vaccine != herd immunity is completely new. The closer a vaccine gets the further away it gets and the less of a holy grail it turns out to be - just one more tool in the box along with masks and lockdowns.
(FPT)
Let alone it lasting long enough for there to be herd immunity.
90% of Tory Leave voters and 84% of Tory Remain voters and 69% of 2019 Lab-Con switchers would prefer a Boris government, 97% of Labour Remain voters, 86% of Labour Leave voters and 79% of LD voters would prefer a Starmer led government
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/A-NEW-POLITICAL-LANDSCAPE-Oct-2020.pdf
But that’s not the point - which is to approach the virus as largely harmless to the mass of the population not prioritised for vaccine. People can point to some deaths, and the possibility of some ongoing health issues - but this is true of any number of illnesses that we live with.
It seems like the trials have been conducted on adults, so this will be a vaccine for adults.
(We don't yet know about long-term consequences of those younger ones who recover, but at the moment it's difficult to tell whether the anecdotes are overblown.)
Obviously vaccinate at-risk groups first, no question, but I don't see how society would permit a "let it rip" strategy when it's been expecting a "wait for vaccine" one.
--AS
Most vaccines don't guarantee immunity, they work by reducing the likelihood of you getting and passing on the virus, and/or reducing the likelihood of getting sick if you do. A vaccine which does that will be tremendously useful, even if it isn't perfect.
--AS
"There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50..."
Ms Bingham, who is also managing partner at fund manager SV Health Investors, said that if any vaccine proved to be 95 per cent effective, which is thought to be unlikely, then it may make sense to vaccinate more widely but any decision on this would be taken later.
Decisions on wder testing would be taken lately and based upon how effective the vaccine is.
I would like to see herd immunity dropped as a potential strategy until we have some decent evidence for it as a possibility.
Ms Bingham said that vaccination policy would be aimed at those “most at risk” and noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, “could cause them some freak harm”, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis.
The chances of freak harm from a properly tested vaccine are the same as the chances of any other freak harm like being hit by a meteor - that's what freak means. The suggestion that they are higher from an authority on vaccines is a gift to anti vaxxers and is just a shit argument designed to disguise a u turn.
I am going to mention the articles because (a) I stand by every word and if interviewed would be very happy to explain why they show I’d be good in the role; (b) they show that I have thought about police matters and not just finance; and (c) if they don’t like the idea of a candid friend speaking truth to power, I wouldn’t want the role.
Also due diligence is mostly done very badly so there’s no guarantee that they’d read anything at all unless led by the nose. Anyway off to bed so that I get my personal statement ready tomorrow.
My first draft: “There should be at least one person near government who is competent and has integrity.” may need some amendment. 😂
Many middle of the road people are going to think it was unbelievably dangerous and unnecessary.
It might well be the last straw for some undecided voters.
The reason anti-vaxxers are loons is because the vaccination guidance is driven by science and not politics or economics. If the science says the cost-benefit means we don't recommend vaccinating the healthy then that is the science, overriding that would be a boon to antivaxxers.
Once care staff and patients, the over 50s and the vulnerable are vaccinated we should be able to head back towards normal even without everyone being vaccinated.
Surely “freak” in this context just means highly unlikely. How unlikely depends on the vaccine. We know that vaccines (or indeed most medicines) aren’t 100% percent guaranteed safe. There is always the risk that they can generate adverse reactions. In some people that risk can be predicted in advance and they don’t get vaccinated in the first place. In others it can’t.That is why you weigh the risk of adverse reaction against the benefits that accrue.
Inchildren mass vaccination is pursued to protect those who can’t take the vaccine.
If anyone thought that we were vaccinating everyone from that then they couldn't do the most basic maths.
Sure, it makes sense to give priority to certain groups first - those who are older; healthcare workers etc - but given that the vaccine will be available, there seems no reason not to encourage the vaccination of all adults.
Herd immunity via a vaccine requires vaccinating childrent too and safety trials for children haven't been conducted (AFAIK) so that is impossible. That's not politics, that is science.
If they are halfway competent they'll find out what you wrote anyways.
And who wants to work for less than half competents?
FWIW, I think the government is trying to make sure people get any vaccine in the right order, especially given we don't know yet how long it will be effective, and what degree of immunity it will confer.
That means, older people will get the vaccine first, as will people in roles where they might be exposed to CV19 (or who might also be likely to pass it on). This means doctors, nurses, care home workers, bus drivers, etc., are likely to be first in line.
If you able to protect those most vulnerable to it, or most likely to spread the disease, then you get the biggest "bang for your buck".
In the medium term, and once these people have been vaccinated, I have little doubt that - like the influenza vaccine - it will be available to all who want it.
[https://xkcd.com/1122/]
As far as I am concerned I have always assumed that the vaccination was seen as the key to allowing a return to normal life. If that required vaccinating (offering a vaccine to) everyone then that would happen, if it didn’t then it wouldn’t.
I think you are definitely wrong in seeing in this statement that vaccination is just seen as “one part of the fight alongside masks/lockdowns for the long term”. Vaccine is still the holy grail to get rid of everything else.
The context of the FT report seems to be challenging the idea that we can’t return to normal until everyone is vaccinated, and questions on how long that will take. She is saying that a return to normal will be quicker than people think, because the vaccination programme time will be shorter.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1312889180997984257?s=20
I'll put my trust on this subject to the medical and scientific experts who are testing this and the approval process it goes through - not on party partisan politicians.
Farage might actually be right on that one.
Not long before we find out.
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1312857524811575299?s=21
It doesn't say "never getting it, not in a million years" it says that would be a decision taken later if the science justifies it.
Ms Bingham, who is also managing partner at fund manager SV Health Investors, said that if any vaccine proved to be 95 per cent effective, which is thought to be unlikely, then it may make sense to vaccinate more widely but any decision on this would be taken later.
I take comfort from the fact that Kate B is not a member of the JCVI that will suggest the policy to government, and that JCVI are pretty science-led.
It's certainly likely to be true that the risk balance is different for less-at-risk groups, and phase IV testing (the old yellow card system for reporting adverse reactions after license) as the at-risk groups are vaccinated should give a wider evidence base for this. I also remember that the swine flu vaccine was available to buy privately not all that long after the NHS vaccination program finished, or in fact probably overlapped with it.
--AS
1. Those who attend mass once a week or more often = these are the most religious, or at least most observant Catholics; they tend to be conservative theology, ideology and politics. In US they are more likely than most Americans to be Republicans, pro-life and Trump supporters.
2. Those who attend less than once per week, from a few times a month to never = covers rest of population that considers itself in some sense Catholic, from pretty frequent mass attendees (but sleeping in or playing hooky some Sundays) to totally non-observant but still culturally or tribally Catholic; tend to be LESS conservative in religion, more moderate to progressive in ideology and politics.
Biden will have a bit more support with group #1 in 2020 than Hillary did in 2016, mostly due to NOT to him but rather to erosion of support for Trumpsky even among (some) religious conservatives,
Where he stands to make gains, AND perhaps to win or lose the elections, esp in PA and Midwest, is with group #2.
ANY poll which gives subsets for "Catholic" without differentiating into two groups based on mass attendance is just the average of a VERY politically-split personality.
If it is news to you only today that 60m doses, given out 2 per person, won't vaccinate everyone that might be news to you. It is not news to me.
I am not the expert here.
"The UK has signed a deal with GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur for 60 million doses of a potential coronavirus vaccine, as it races with other world powers to secure supplies.
It’s the fourth deal of this kind the British government has signed in recent months, for a total of 250 million doses secured so far."
https://www.euronews.com/2020/07/29/coronavirus-vaccine-uk-signs-new-deal-for-60-million-doses-of-potential-covid-19-solution
Which is why I thought the FT article had to be not as it seemed.
--AS
If people don't want it, that's their watch but most will I expect.
From what I've seen, in a lot of parishes you can split the first group into two main sub-groups. Those who are old. And those who are at death's door.
The abuse scandals really did a number of the Church in America. Middle class parents not being able to afford tuition at Catholic High Schools (with many of them subsequently disappearing) didn't help.
Biden will probably get more support from both groups simply he is Catholic and resembles someone you might see in the pews. A big step down from JFK (or Al Smith... or Tim Kaine....) but whatever.
One of the main drivers of this will be that some countries (like Australia or New Zealand) will, I'm sure, simply not allow people to enter without proof of vaccination.