'In 2016, just after Donald Trump won the US presidential election, I was fortunate to spend some time with him in Trump Tower in New York. During this meeting, the depth of his affection for the United Kingdom was obvious. His team told me that a trade deal with Britain was a priority in order to show that he was not an isolationist but wanted sensible arrangements unlike, say, the North American Free Trade Agreement between America, Canada and Mexico.
Four years have been squandered since then, during which the British Government has dithered and a full Brexit has not been delivered. Now, the chance of a trade agreement with America has almost certainly evaporated if, as seems likely, Joe Biden is confirmed as the new president.
Who can forget in April 2016, just before the EU referendum, Barack Obama telling the British people that if we dared to vote for Brexit our country would be at “the back of the queue” in terms of a trade deal because America’s focus would be on negotiating with the EU? Well, Obama’s vice president at the time was Biden, and his personal dislike of Brexit has not changed since then. Indeed, Biden is an avid supporter of the EU and his priority will be to improve relations between his country and the bloc.... The omens are not good. Anthony Gardner, the former US Ambassador to the European Union and a close confidant of Biden’s, has already said that future relations between the UK and America will depend on our final deal with the EU.
After years of failure, Britain is now caught in a trap between Brussels and Washington. Stranded in the mid-Atlantic, we have played ourselves into a form of checkmate. Brexit talks have stalled and this time the clock is genuinely running down. Johnson now faces a simple choice. He can either strike a deal with which both Washington and Brussels are happy, or he can go it alone and be criticised for looking friendless in the world.
So, the Northern Irish protocol, a fisheries deal that suits the EU, and some form of regulatory alignment will be put to the British government in the next few days on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I am sorry to say that Johnson, who already looks beleaguered and who is struggling with unity in his party and plummeting popularity levels, is now far more likely to do the deal that Brussels wants. '
Farage is yesterday's news, just as his best toxic mate Trump
Boris gets a deal, any deal the country moves on
I agree BigG Boris will likely get a deal but that means Nige will be back crying 'betrayal' on the basis of what he will portray as Boris caving in to the EU as he has already said Boris has caved into the scientists on lockdown 2, I would not be surprised if his new Reform UK party got 5 to 10% of the vote at the local elections next year therefore in which he has already said he will be standing candidates.
Ironically a deal with the EU and continued lockdown and furlough reduces the threat of an SNP majority at Holyrood next year but while the threat of nationalism in Scotland might recede it will revive again in England as Farage makes yet another comeback
It was always likely, though. The idea that Farage could be appeased by a suitably tough stance on Europe was always for the birds. Whatever the policy, Nigel's was always going to be one step further on. If the UK had declared war on France, he'd be asking why those slimy Belgians were getting away with it.
Had a briefing from a COVID research bigwig today. Things that might be interesting:
. They are confident that the Oxford vaccine will work, because it's targeting the same protein as the Pfizer one.
. Seems to think that the government prefers the Oxford vaccine (probably because of the easier distribution requirements, I guess) and that they might be planning mainly for that.
. Of all the lateral flow COVID tests they tried, only 3 worked with remotely good sensitivity. Most were rubbish.
Just passing on in case of interest.
--AS
A lot is made of distribution problems of the PFE vaccine, but it's not required to be kept *that* cold, it doesn't require anything more exotic than a bit of insulation and dry ice.
Yes, so I was reading. Perhaps they are worried about GPs messing up the final stage.
I was quite surprised that the Oxford vaccine seems favoured, but perhaps they were working to old assumptions. That seems to be a feature of UK government planning at the moment.
(There's also been some mild criticism of Pfizer for announcing before they have a paper ready. A bit of scientist culture vs pharma culture, I guess.)
--AS
The oxford one is at least a 1/10 of the price as well.
Are you sure about that? My understanding is that the PFE vaccine is the most manufacturable of all the vaccines (hence how they got through trials first, despite starting two months behind AZN or Moderna.)
Telegraph article yesterday...said costs £30, Oxford £2.20 and UK government likely to get special discount rate.
Had a briefing from a COVID research bigwig today. Things that might be interesting:
. They are confident that the Oxford vaccine will work, because it's targeting the same protein as the Pfizer one.
. Seems to think that the government prefers the Oxford vaccine (probably because of the easier distribution requirements, I guess) and that they might be planning mainly for that.
. Of all the lateral flow COVID tests they tried, only 3 worked with remotely good sensitivity. Most were rubbish.
Just passing on in case of interest.
--AS
How did they define 'rubbish', and 'remotely good' ?
This was asked, and they didn't give a clear answer. The ground truth with respect to which sensitivity is measured is also unclear.
--AS
There's a question about how accurate they need to be, of course. Anything over (say) 70% sensitivity and 99% specificity would do a massively more useful job than PCR testing in getting large scale outbreaks under control.
Certainly. I think specificity is closer to 99.5%, but sensitivity might be lower than 70%, depending on how many virus particles you have in the sample. (Manufacturers' claims of accuracy have turned out to be completely false.)
Like you I do think, and have always thought, that relatively insensitive mass testing could make a huge difference. When all is said and done, it will be interesting to hear who in government was for and against such testing.
Germany, as it is very possible there will be a Green Chancellor next year after Merkel steps down and Germany goes to the polls in September 2021 and if it elects a Green, SPD and Linke coalition (assuming the CDU will still not touch the AFD with a bargepole). The Greens are currently second in German polls.
The Greens are opposed to NATO military action, relatively pacifist and will cut German defence spending even further
The greens are also in favour of trying to keep a reasonably habitable planet for the next few generations. I would have thought that would be in America's long term interests.
If you go by current polling, any coalition not involving CDU/CSU wouldn't work. There is zero chance of the CDU having any kind of arrangement with the Afd. CDU Green coalition is certainly possible, even likely, the SPD must be sick of being a somewhat pointless junior partner at national level.
So the CDU/CSU will win most seats but the Greens, SPD and Linke combined will have more seats than the CDU/CSU and their traditional coalition partners the FDP combined ie 43% combined to 41% combined.
If neither block does a deal with the AfD the left block could therefore form a minority coalition government with a Green Chancellor despite the fact CDU/CSU and AfD combined would be on 45% ie more than the 43% combined for the Green led left block.
First, there is zero chance of anyone doing a deal with the Afd.
Second, on those figures the CDU would probably form a coalition with the Greens. 2nd option would be to continua CDU SPD coalition.
If the FDP don't get over 5%, so don't get into parliament then a Green SPD Linke majority coalition would be possible. Although perhaps harder to reach agreement than the first 2 options.
A Green-led minority coalition is vanishingly unlikely.
The CDU may try and do a deal with the Greens but the Greens may prefer a left of centre coalition with the SPD and Linke, especially if they have the numbers for a minority government and the CDU candidate for Chancellor is Friedrich Merz, who is significantly more rightwing than Merkel is.
The SPD membership have always been very reluctant supporters of a Grand Coalition with the CDU and may also favour a deal with the Greens and Linke if that has the numbers after next year's poll. If the FDP don't pass the threshold for seats in the Bundestag then yes a left of centre Green SPD Linke coalition would be almost certain.
If that happened then the UK and Japan would be the only nations left in the G7 with centre right leaders, all other G7 leaders would be from the liberal centre left or lead a left of centre coalition in the case of Conte in Italy
First, even if Green SPD Linke could form a majority it is far from "almost certain" that they would form a coalition government. Look at the Bundesländer, there are currently 2 states with CDU coalitions where Greens could have instead formed majorities with the SPD and either Linke or in the other case FDP. If the CDU are biggest party and Greens second and between them they have a majority, then I see that coalition as the most likely outcome, though other options are of course possible.
Second, Germany has never had a minority government at the national level, and rarely at the state level (there are currently none). As we saw last time, German parties prefer months of negotiations to a minority government. The afd being in Parliament makes a minority government even less likely, as it would make their MPs more likely to decide votes and no other party wants to give them the possibility of claiming such wins.
Seem that many PBers think that the Electoral College - all 538 of them - will assemble in one group grope to elect the (next) President of the United States.
What will happen, is that the elected Electors in each state will assemble at 50 state capitals to cast their votes. No joint meeting, and only ones assembling in Washington DC will be the 3 District of Columbia Electors.
Will be VERY interesting to see how many - if any - "faithless electors" there are this year = Electors who do NOT vote for the Presidential or VP candidates who carried their state AND for whom they are pledged and/or obligated (by state law) to support.
Do they all meet at the same time? or could some potentially be influenced by reports of other meetings?
Electoral college results are communicated by mail coach, so no danger there.
RECOUNTS - Keep in mind in USA there are 50 ways of conducting recounts (plus DC, PR & other territories). Because each state has its own laws & regulations, which cover recounts in federal as well as purely state & local elections.
As to counting "bundles" and suchlike, wipe your minds of UK parliamentary election experience, where just one race is on each ballot paper and number of total ballots is limited. Whereas in US there are multiple races on each ballot, jurisdictions for counting are often VERY large and initial counting is almost all done via machine using a variety of technologies.
'Elizabeth de Jong, the policy director of Logistics UK, which represents the freight industry, told MPs on Wednesday the original version was “not fit for purpose” since it failed to answer the basic question “what documentation and checks do I need for my journey?”.'
Stranded in the mid-Atlantic, we have played ourselves into a form of checkmate.
Who could have predicted that?
It's also obvious gas-lighting by Nige in that his position in the 2016 Referendum (when Trump was NOT President) was that Obama/Biden were obviously bluffing and we'd actually get a fabulous deal from any US President.
So was he lying then, or is he lying now?*
* it's a trick question, of course, as the answer is both.
'Elizabeth de Jong, the policy director of Logistics UK, which represents the freight industry, told MPs on Wednesday the original version was “not fit for purpose” since it failed to answer the basic question “what documentation and checks do I need for my journey?”.'
Cant they just project sunny optimism instead of using pesky forms? No imagination those logistics bods.
Seem that many PBers think that the Electoral College - all 538 of them - will assemble in one group grope to elect the (next) President of the United States.
What will happen, is that the elected Electors in each state will assemble at 50 state capitals to cast their votes. No joint meeting, and only ones assembling in Washington DC will be the 3 District of Columbia Electors.
Will be VERY interesting to see how many - if any - "faithless electors" there are this year = Electors who do NOT vote for the Presidential or VP candidates who carried their state AND for whom they are pledged and/or obligated (by state law) to support.
Do they all meet at the same time? or could some potentially be influenced by reports of other meetings?
Electoral college results are communicated by mail coach, so no danger there.
Wouldn't smoke signals be the appropriate technology?
How rapidly will Biden concede if Trump is somehow adjudged to be winning?
This could get very weird.
Biden's obviously won, everyone agrees, probably even Trump does. But Trump could still win..
My best outcome is that the whole thing is declared null and void (I'm deeply all red), and I guess there may just be the slightest sliver of a hope for that! (I wouldn't back 1000s mind)
How rapidly will Biden concede if Trump is somehow adjudged to be winning?
This could get very weird.
Biden's obviously won, everyone agrees, probably even Trump does. But Trump could still win..
My best outcome is that the whole thing is declared null and void (I'm deeply all red), and I guess there may just be the slightest sliver of a hope for that! (I wouldn't back 1000s mind)
Trump cannot win because Biden has already won. The election is over, and the winner is known.
'Elizabeth de Jong, the policy director of Logistics UK, which represents the freight industry, told MPs on Wednesday the original version was “not fit for purpose” since it failed to answer the basic question “what documentation and checks do I need for my journey?”.'
Cant they just project sunny optimism instead of using pesky forms? No imagination those logistics bods.
The problem is in part it's not so much the loggie specialists but your average Fred the King of the Road who has to deal with and understand and have ready the bumf IN ADVANCE of setting out - not to mention Pierre, Hermann, Pedro, Benito ... who mostly will need all of them have to be translated into n languages too.
Had a briefing from a COVID research bigwig today. Things that might be interesting:
. They are confident that the Oxford vaccine will work, because it's targeting the same protein as the Pfizer one.
. Seems to think that the government prefers the Oxford vaccine (probably because of the easier distribution requirements, I guess) and that they might be planning mainly for that.
. Of all the lateral flow COVID tests they tried, only 3 worked with remotely good sensitivity. Most were rubbish.
Just passing on in case of interest.
--AS
A lot is made of distribution problems of the PFE vaccine, but it's not required to be kept *that* cold, it doesn't require anything more exotic than a bit of insulation and dry ice.
Yes, so I was reading. Perhaps they are worried about GPs messing up the final stage.
I was quite surprised that the Oxford vaccine seems favoured, but perhaps they were working to old assumptions. That seems to be a feature of UK government planning at the moment.
(There's also been some mild criticism of Pfizer for announcing before they have a paper ready. A bit of scientist culture vs pharma culture, I guess.)
--AS
The oxford one is at least a 1/10 of the price as well.
Are you sure about that? My understanding is that the PFE vaccine is the most manufacturable of all the vaccines (hence how they got through trials first, despite starting two months behind AZN or Moderna.)
Telegraph article yesterday...said costs £30, Oxford £2.20 and UK government likely to get special discount rate.
AZN/Oxford £2.20 before special discount? My guess is that this is because AZN/Oxford has gotten development money, and this therefore results in a lower per unit price.
But it's worth remembering that these numbers are tiny. Even if it was £100/person, it would only cost £5bn to vaccinate the entire British adult population. That's chicken feed.
Seem that many PBers think that the Electoral College - all 538 of them - will assemble in one group grope to elect the (next) President of the United States.
What will happen, is that the elected Electors in each state will assemble at 50 state capitals to cast their votes. No joint meeting, and only ones assembling in Washington DC will be the 3 District of Columbia Electors.
Will be VERY interesting to see how many - if any - "faithless electors" there are this year = Electors who do NOT vote for the Presidential or VP candidates who carried their state AND for whom they are pledged and/or obligated (by state law) to support.
Do they all meet at the same time? or could some potentially be influenced by reports of other meetings?
Electors in each state meet on the same day, December 14, 2020. In WA State, Democratic electors pledged to Biden & Harris will assemble at the Legislative Building in Olympia, convened by WA Secretary of State Kim Wyman, a Republiican.
Of course news of what transpires at EV meetings from sea to shining sea will be reported. My guess is that there may be a few faithless electors, likely from the Biggest Loser.
Note that in 2016 WA State had several Electors who did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton despite the fact she won the state hands-down. Don't know the details, but my distinct impression is that the state Democratic Party took positive steps to prevent a repeat - mostly by being more selective as to who they pick for as electors.
That's ok though. They are pretty much saying that they don't know how to compare these things, but here are some numbers. I'm sure there are a few of us here that could do a better job, but I doubt anyone would claim that they could paint a perfect picture.
That's ok though. They are pretty much saying that they don't know how to compare these things, but here are some numbers. I'm sure there are a few of us here that could do a better job, but I doubt anyone would claim that they could paint a perfect picture.
I love the way the government can’t compare things when the news is bad, but otherwise it is first to claim something is world beating 🤷♂️
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
Seem that many PBers think that the Electoral College - all 538 of them - will assemble in one group grope to elect the (next) President of the United States.
What will happen, is that the elected Electors in each state will assemble at 50 state capitals to cast their votes. No joint meeting, and only ones assembling in Washington DC will be the 3 District of Columbia Electors.
Will be VERY interesting to see how many - if any - "faithless electors" there are this year = Electors who do NOT vote for the Presidential or VP candidates who carried their state AND for whom they are pledged and/or obligated (by state law) to support.
Do they all meet at the same time? or could some potentially be influenced by reports of other meetings?
Electors in each state meet on the same day, December 14, 2020. In WA State, Democratic electors pledged to Biden & Harris will assemble at the Legislative Building in Olympia, convened by WA Secretary of State Kim Wyman, a Republiican.
Of course news of what transpires at EV meetings from sea to shining sea will be reported. My guess is that there may be a few faithless electors, likely from the Biggest Loser.
Note that in 2016 WA State had several Electors who did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton despite the fact she won the state hands-down. Don't know the details, but my distinct impression is that the state Democratic Party took positive steps to prevent a repeat - mostly by being more selective as to who they pick for as electors.
It went beyond that - Washington state passed a law in 2019, upheld by the Supreme Court this year, the effect of which is to completely prevent electors voting against the candidate that won the popular vote in the state. Several states, but by no means all, are either equally restrictive or don't prevent it but have stiff sanctions.
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
If you were Russian, would you trust any vaccine the State offered you?
How rapidly will Biden concede if Trump is somehow adjudged to be winning?
This could get very weird.
Biden's obviously won, everyone agrees, probably even Trump does. But Trump could still win..
My best outcome is that the whole thing is declared null and void (I'm deeply all red), and I guess there may just be the slightest sliver of a hope for that! (I wouldn't back 1000s mind)
Trump cannot win because Biden has already won. The election is over, and the winner is known.
Yes of course. Completely agree, but there is the nagging question of why you can back Biden at 1.10. And, although I've backed him in a modest stake at 1.09, I'm not tempted to bung the mortgage on at 1.10, even though I think it should be free money.
Had a briefing from a COVID research bigwig today. Things that might be interesting:
. They are confident that the Oxford vaccine will work, because it's targeting the same protein as the Pfizer one.
. Seems to think that the government prefers the Oxford vaccine (probably because of the easier distribution requirements, I guess) and that they might be planning mainly for that.
. Of all the lateral flow COVID tests they tried, only 3 worked with remotely good sensitivity. Most were rubbish.
Just passing on in case of interest.
--AS
A lot is made of distribution problems of the PFE vaccine, but it's not required to be kept *that* cold, it doesn't require anything more exotic than a bit of insulation and dry ice.
Yes, so I was reading. Perhaps they are worried about GPs messing up the final stage.
I was quite surprised that the Oxford vaccine seems favoured, but perhaps they were working to old assumptions. That seems to be a feature of UK government planning at the moment.
(There's also been some mild criticism of Pfizer for announcing before they have a paper ready. A bit of scientist culture vs pharma culture, I guess.)
--AS
The oxford one is at least a 1/10 of the price as well.
Are you sure about that? My understanding is that the PFE vaccine is the most manufacturable of all the vaccines (hence how they got through trials first, despite starting two months behind AZN or Moderna.)
Telegraph article yesterday...said costs £30, Oxford £2.20 and UK government likely to get special discount rate.
AZN/Oxford £2.20 before special discount? My guess is that this is because AZN/Oxford has gotten development money, and this therefore results in a lower per unit price.
But it's worth remembering that these numbers are tiny. Even if it was £100/person, it would only cost £5bn to vaccinate the entire British adult population. That's chicken feed.
My contact today thought that the Pfizer vaccine would be very expensive to make -- he thought $100, though it was a number pulled out of the air. A £30 price may already include development money subsidy.
I agree with you that in total it's worth paying, though, at least for the first year. Not sure about future years...
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
"if true" doing a LOT of heavy lifting there.
The Russians are not cowboys. Their scientists are highly capable. They probably do have a working vaccine in development.
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Cruz is ultra rightwing but he is also formidably intelligent, graduating cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant".
He was Solicitor General of Texas too before being elected a US Senator for the state in 2012
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
"if true" doing a LOT of heavy lifting there.
The Russians are not cowboys. Their scientists are highly capable. They probably do have a working vaccine in development.
Well they also have been hacking into all the other vaccine research that has been going on.
Had a briefing from a COVID research bigwig today. Things that might be interesting:
. They are confident that the Oxford vaccine will work, because it's targeting the same protein as the Pfizer one.
. Seems to think that the government prefers the Oxford vaccine (probably because of the easier distribution requirements, I guess) and that they might be planning mainly for that.
. Of all the lateral flow COVID tests they tried, only 3 worked with remotely good sensitivity. Most were rubbish.
Just passing on in case of interest.
--AS
A lot is made of distribution problems of the PFE vaccine, but it's not required to be kept *that* cold, it doesn't require anything more exotic than a bit of insulation and dry ice.
Yes, so I was reading. Perhaps they are worried about GPs messing up the final stage.
I was quite surprised that the Oxford vaccine seems favoured, but perhaps they were working to old assumptions. That seems to be a feature of UK government planning at the moment.
(There's also been some mild criticism of Pfizer for announcing before they have a paper ready. A bit of scientist culture vs pharma culture, I guess.)
--AS
The oxford one is at least a 1/10 of the price as well.
Are you sure about that? My understanding is that the PFE vaccine is the most manufacturable of all the vaccines (hence how they got through trials first, despite starting two months behind AZN or Moderna.)
Telegraph article yesterday...said costs £30, Oxford £2.20 and UK government likely to get special discount rate.
AZN/Oxford £2.20 before special discount? My guess is that this is because AZN/Oxford has gotten development money, and this therefore results in a lower per unit price.
But it's worth remembering that these numbers are tiny. Even if it was £100/person, it would only cost £5bn to vaccinate the entire British adult population. That's chicken feed.
My contact today thought that the Pfizer vaccine would be very expensive to make -- he thought $100, though it was a number pulled out of the air. A £30 price may already include development money subsidy.
I agree with you that in total it's worth paying, though, at least for the first year. Not sure about future years...
--AS
What are you on about? Two quid would be better, but £30 or £100 is basically sod all in this context, regardless of whether it's recurring or not.
How rapidly will Biden concede if Trump is somehow adjudged to be winning?
This could get very weird.
Biden's obviously won, everyone agrees, probably even Trump does. But Trump could still win..
My best outcome is that the whole thing is declared null and void (I'm deeply all red), and I guess there may just be the slightest sliver of a hope for that! (I wouldn't back 1000s mind)
Trump cannot win because Biden has already won. The election is over, and the winner is known.
Yes of course. Completely agree, but there is the nagging question of why you can back Biden at 1.10. And, although I've backed him in a modest stake at 1.09, I'm not tempted to bung the mortgage on at 1.10, even though I think it should be free money.
The price represents a number of people who have Trump in their head, through either love or fear, and overestimate his ability. Trump is really not very capable, but even if he were, it's already beyond him. Trump derangement syndrome is a real thing, suffered by his fans and enemies alike, but this situation is past psychology now. It doesn't matter how fervently a small number of people love or loathe him. They can pour their money into a losing bet but they can't change physics. The past is done. Thermodynamics has called it for Biden.
Do we know for how long the Pfizer vaccine confers immunity yet?
We won't know for sure until it starts wearing off in people who've had it. But the antibody decay in people who've had the early doses was reasonable. I think the smart money is on it lasting around a year, plus or minus. Partial protection might be longer. We'll have to wait and see -- and in the meantime most likely better (cheaper?) vaccines will come along for the boosters.
(I'm not sure whether the Oxford vaccine can be used as a booster, since the host may acquire immunity to the vector. I'd like to know what an immunologist thinks of this.)
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
"if true" doing a LOT of heavy lifting there.
The Russians are not cowboys. Their scientists are highly capable. They probably do have a working vaccine in development.
That's not what I'm incredulous about and this isn't like Mrs Trellis of North Wales saying her hot Bovril cure works wonders.
It's Russia coming out and saying "ours is 92% effective" immediately after Pfizer claimed 90% that has the bulls1t detector reading 11.
Let's wait for that to be verified before getting out the party poppers.
The way things stand at the moment, Biden is/was about 25,000 potential switchers clear of the winning mark, if you assume that a 269-269 tie would have led to a Trump retention of office.
Tuned in to RT to see how they’re spinning the US election. Desperately trying to support Trumps claims. It’s coming across as a bit pathetic.
Is Alex Salmond still on there?
They interviewed a lawyer who supported Bush in the 2000 Florida disputes. He didn’t play ball at all. He said that Biden is the president elect, that the winning margins were vast and there is no evidence of significant corruption.
Had a briefing from a COVID research bigwig today. Things that might be interesting:
. They are confident that the Oxford vaccine will work, because it's targeting the same protein as the Pfizer one.
. Seems to think that the government prefers the Oxford vaccine (probably because of the easier distribution requirements, I guess) and that they might be planning mainly for that.
. Of all the lateral flow COVID tests they tried, only 3 worked with remotely good sensitivity. Most were rubbish.
Just passing on in case of interest.
--AS
A lot is made of distribution problems of the PFE vaccine, but it's not required to be kept *that* cold, it doesn't require anything more exotic than a bit of insulation and dry ice.
Yes, so I was reading. Perhaps they are worried about GPs messing up the final stage.
I was quite surprised that the Oxford vaccine seems favoured, but perhaps they were working to old assumptions. That seems to be a feature of UK government planning at the moment.
(There's also been some mild criticism of Pfizer for announcing before they have a paper ready. A bit of scientist culture vs pharma culture, I guess.)
--AS
The oxford one is at least a 1/10 of the price as well.
Are you sure about that? My understanding is that the PFE vaccine is the most manufacturable of all the vaccines (hence how they got through trials first, despite starting two months behind AZN or Moderna.)
Telegraph article yesterday...said costs £30, Oxford £2.20 and UK government likely to get special discount rate.
AZN/Oxford £2.20 before special discount? My guess is that this is because AZN/Oxford has gotten development money, and this therefore results in a lower per unit price.
But it's worth remembering that these numbers are tiny. Even if it was £100/person, it would only cost £5bn to vaccinate the entire British adult population. That's chicken feed.
My contact today thought that the Pfizer vaccine would be very expensive to make -- he thought $100, though it was a number pulled out of the air. A £30 price may already include development money subsidy.
I agree with you that in total it's worth paying, though, at least for the first year. Not sure about future years...
--AS
£5 billion a year is a lot cheaper than locking down every three months,
Had a briefing from a COVID research bigwig today. Things that might be interesting:
. They are confident that the Oxford vaccine will work, because it's targeting the same protein as the Pfizer one.
. Seems to think that the government prefers the Oxford vaccine (probably because of the easier distribution requirements, I guess) and that they might be planning mainly for that.
. Of all the lateral flow COVID tests they tried, only 3 worked with remotely good sensitivity. Most were rubbish.
Just passing on in case of interest.
--AS
A lot is made of distribution problems of the PFE vaccine, but it's not required to be kept *that* cold, it doesn't require anything more exotic than a bit of insulation and dry ice.
Yes, so I was reading. Perhaps they are worried about GPs messing up the final stage.
I was quite surprised that the Oxford vaccine seems favoured, but perhaps they were working to old assumptions. That seems to be a feature of UK government planning at the moment.
(There's also been some mild criticism of Pfizer for announcing before they have a paper ready. A bit of scientist culture vs pharma culture, I guess.)
--AS
The oxford one is at least a 1/10 of the price as well.
Are you sure about that? My understanding is that the PFE vaccine is the most manufacturable of all the vaccines (hence how they got through trials first, despite starting two months behind AZN or Moderna.)
Telegraph article yesterday...said costs £30, Oxford £2.20 and UK government likely to get special discount rate.
AZN/Oxford £2.20 before special discount? My guess is that this is because AZN/Oxford has gotten development money, and this therefore results in a lower per unit price.
But it's worth remembering that these numbers are tiny. Even if it was £100/person, it would only cost £5bn to vaccinate the entire British adult population. That's chicken feed.
My contact today thought that the Pfizer vaccine would be very expensive to make -- he thought $100, though it was a number pulled out of the air. A £30 price may already include development money subsidy.
I agree with you that in total it's worth paying, though, at least for the first year. Not sure about future years...
--AS
What are you on about? Two quid would be better, but £30 or £100 is basically sod all in this context, regardless of whether it's recurring or not.
There's likely to be better options, is all I mean.
A random thought about the Georgia Senate elections. Is anyone surprised that Purdue doesn't seem to be seeking a recount? Or are there no recount provisions for that election.
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Cruz is ultra rightwing but he is also formidably intelligent, graduating cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant".
If he was that good, how come he only got a cum laude and a magna?
Not only are death numbers incomparable but even death numbers probably are too.
If you're comparing deaths within 28 days of a test but a lot of positives haven't had a test then it's entirely possible if not probable a lot of deaths haven't been caught either.
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
"if true" doing a LOT of heavy lifting there.
The Russians are not cowboys. Their scientists are highly capable. They probably do have a working vaccine in development.
'In 2016, just after Donald Trump won the US presidential election, I was fortunate to spend some time with him in Trump Tower in New York. During this meeting, the depth of his affection for the United Kingdom was obvious. His team told me that a trade deal with Britain was a priority in order to show that he was not an isolationist but wanted sensible arrangements unlike, say, the North American Free Trade Agreement between America, Canada and Mexico.
Four years have been squandered since then, during which the British Government has dithered and a full Brexit has not been delivered. Now, the chance of a trade agreement with America has almost certainly evaporated if, as seems likely, Joe Biden is confirmed as the new president.
Who can forget in April 2016, just before the EU referendum, Barack Obama telling the British people that if we dared to vote for Brexit our country would be at “the back of the queue” in terms of a trade deal because America’s focus would be on negotiating with the EU? Well, Obama’s vice president at the time was Biden, and his personal dislike of Brexit has not changed since then. Indeed, Biden is an avid supporter of the EU and his priority will be to improve relations between his country and the bloc.... The omens are not good. Anthony Gardner, the former US Ambassador to the European Union and a close confidant of Biden’s, has already said that future relations between the UK and America will depend on our final deal with the EU.
After years of failure, Britain is now caught in a trap between Brussels and Washington. Stranded in the mid-Atlantic, we have played ourselves into a form of checkmate. Brexit talks have stalled and this time the clock is genuinely running down. Johnson now faces a simple choice. He can either strike a deal with which both Washington and Brussels are happy, or he can go it alone and be criticised for looking friendless in the world.
So, the Northern Irish protocol, a fisheries deal that suits the EU, and some form of regulatory alignment will be put to the British government in the next few days on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I am sorry to say that Johnson, who already looks beleaguered and who is struggling with unity in his party and plummeting popularity levels, is now far more likely to do the deal that Brussels wants. '
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Cruz is ultra rightwing but he is also formidably intelligent, graduating cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant".
If he was that good, how come he only got a cum laude and a magna?
What's that? The American equivalent of a Desmond?
How rapidly will Biden concede if Trump is somehow adjudged to be winning?
This could get very weird.
Biden's obviously won, everyone agrees, probably even Trump does. But Trump could still win..
My best outcome is that the whole thing is declared null and void (I'm deeply all red), and I guess there may just be the slightest sliver of a hope for that! (I wouldn't back 1000s mind)
Trump cannot win because Biden has already won. The election is over, and the winner is known.
Yes of course. Completely agree, but there is the nagging question of why you can back Biden at 1.10. And, although I've backed him in a modest stake at 1.09, I'm not tempted to bung the mortgage on at 1.10, even though I think it should be free money.
You can back Biden at 1.10 because idiots want to back Trump as they want him to win so much they are in denial of the fact he has lost.
They are literally giving their money away. It is a far right idiot tax. Free money.
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Cruz is ultra rightwing but he is also formidably intelligent, graduating cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant".
If he was that good, how come he only got a cum laude and a magna?
Magna cum laude is the US equivalent of a 1st, there used to be a summa cum laude for the top 1 to 2% too but most institutions do not use that now
I agree BigG Boris will likely get a deal but that means Nige will be back crying 'betrayal' on the basis of what he will portray as Boris caving in to the EU as he has already said Boris has caved into the scientists on lockdown 2, I would not be surprised if his new Reform UK party got 5 to 10% of the vote at the local elections next year therefore in which he has already said he will be standing candidates.
Ironically a deal with the EU and continued lockdown and furlough reduces the threat of an SNP majority at Holyrood next year but while the threat of nationalism in Scotland might recede it will revive again in England as Farage makes yet another comeback
Farage has zero chance in ANY local election. He's been a miserable failure 20 years in any election against real candidates for real jobs, even when he had a followership.
Now, reduced to advocating anti-lockdown policies 70% of the British public reject and acting as the British mouthpiece of his deranged loser chum - who by May will be broke and doing perpetual perp walks in most US states - he'll be lucky to average more than a percent or two.
A random thought about the Georgia Senate elections. Is anyone surprised that Purdue doesn't seem to be seeking a recount? Or are there no recount provisions for that election.
I think their recount provisions is only where there is a margin of less than 0.5% between winner and loser. There isn't with Perdue - the only loser is the Libertarian candidate who was miles back (but whose intervention prevented anyone getting 50%). Perdue was within 0.5% of not needing to bother with a run-off, which isn't the same and I don't think qualifies.
Do we know for how long the Pfizer vaccine confers immunity yet?
That's just one of a number of questions for which there aren't currently any answers. The euphoria over Monday's announcement seems to be such that anyone asking questions or having doubts is castigated as being in need of psychiatric help so here goes (again):
1) I've seen reports of volunteers suffering side effects from the vaccine. Should we not be told what the risks and potential side effects are or could be?
2) It's my understanding it's not one injection but two - the second 3-4 weeks after the first. Can anyone confirm?
3) Will this vaccine provide permanent immunity or will we need a "booster" shot(s) every year?
4) Understandably and rightly, there will be a phased distribution of the vaccine starting with the over-85s, carers and NHS workers. After that will come other vulnerable individuals and then (presumably) it will be made available to all older (60+) people?
5) Do people think the vaccine should be made freely available across the world? Clearly, it's going to be hard to stop corrupt Governments either a) seeking to profit from the vaccine by charging their citizens or b) providing the vaccine only for the elite or supporters and leaving large (or smaller) segments of the population defenceless against the virus?
Seem that many PBers think that the Electoral College - all 538 of them - will assemble in one group grope to elect the (next) President of the United States.
What will happen, is that the elected Electors in each state will assemble at 50 state capitals to cast their votes. No joint meeting, and only ones assembling in Washington DC will be the 3 District of Columbia Electors.
Will be VERY interesting to see how many - if any - "faithless electors" there are this year = Electors who do NOT vote for the Presidential or VP candidates who carried their state AND for whom they are pledged and/or obligated (by state law) to support.
Do they all meet at the same time? or could some potentially be influenced by reports of other meetings?
Electors in each state meet on the same day, December 14, 2020. In WA State, Democratic electors pledged to Biden & Harris will assemble at the Legislative Building in Olympia, convened by WA Secretary of State Kim Wyman, a Republiican.
Of course news of what transpires at EV meetings from sea to shining sea will be reported. My guess is that there may be a few faithless electors, likely from the Biggest Loser.
Note that in 2016 WA State had several Electors who did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton despite the fact she won the state hands-down. Don't know the details, but my distinct impression is that the state Democratic Party took positive steps to prevent a repeat - mostly by being more selective as to who they pick for as electors.
It went beyond that - Washington state passed a law in 2019, upheld by the Supreme Court this year, the effect of which is to completely prevent electors voting against the candidate that won the popular vote in the state. Several states, but by no means all, are either equally restrictive or don't prevent it but have stiff sanctions.
from Wiki:
Chiafalo v. Washington
The Democratic ticket of Clinton and Kaine won the popular vote in Washington, thus the slate of twelve Democratic electors were appointed. Four of these electors, who had signed pledges to vote for the Democratic nominee, voted for candidates other than Clinton/Kaine. Per the law, they were each fined. Three of the four electors, Peter Bret Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John, challenged the fine as a violation of their constitutional rights, arguing that the state's authority over them as electors ended once they were appointed and they were free to vote as they chose under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
At an initial hearing, an administrative law judge upheld the fines, stating he had no jurisdiction to rule on constitutional arguments, only whether the fines were applied in accordance with state law. At the first trial at the Thurston County Superior Court in 2017, the judge ruled against the constitutional argument and deemed the fines permissible.
The three electors then appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which in May 2019 upheld the lower court ruling with an 8–1 vote. The majority opinion states that "The power of electors to vote comes from the State, and the elector has no personal right to that vote" to justify the fine. The lone dissent argues that the plenary power of the state to appoint electors may not be conflated with control over the electors once voting has begun, in line with Justice Jackson's concerns in Ray v. Blair.
Subsequently, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill into law in May 2019 that changes the faithless elector law, such that should an elector fail to vote for the candidate of their party, the elector is removed from their position and a new elector is then appointed, rather than allowing the elector to vote faithlessly and be subject to fines after the fact. The new law is analogous to the law in question in the Colorado case.
On October 7, 2019, the three electors appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court. . . .
On January 17, 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to hear both the Washington case and the Colorado case, Colorado Department of State v. Baca . . . .
The Court issued its rulings in both Chiafalo and Baca on July 6, 2020. Chiafalo was a unanimous ruling of the court, affirming the lower court's decision that states may enforce the pledge of an elector in the presidential election; Baca was decided per curiam (with Sotomayor recused) reversing the Court of Appeal's judgement "for the reasons stated in Chiafalo..."
SSI here - In my humble opinion, fines AFTER the fact are worthless. BUT the replacement of faithless electors by someone who actually DOES respect the popular vote in their state for President, IS an effective step.
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Cruz is ultra rightwing but he is also formidably intelligent, graduating cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant".
If he was that good, how come he only got a cum laude and a magna?
What's that? The American equivalent of a Desmond?
Yeah very roughly cum laude is a Douglas, magna cum laude is a Desmond to a a low Taiwan. To be really outstanding you need a summa cum laude which is roughly a high 2:1 to a Patti.
Not to mention that it takes Americans (and Scots) four years to get what the English achieve in three.
Do we know for how long the Pfizer vaccine confers immunity yet?
No, but assume at least a year. Reinfection with Covid has been vanishingly rare, despite media scares, so vaccine induced immunity should be good for the short term. Longer than that we don’t know.
I agree BigG Boris will likely get a deal but that means Nige will be back crying 'betrayal' on the basis of what he will portray as Boris caving in to the EU as he has already said Boris has caved into the scientists on lockdown 2, I would not be surprised if his new Reform UK party got 5 to 10% of the vote at the local elections next year therefore in which he has already said he will be standing candidates.
Ironically a deal with the EU and continued lockdown and furlough reduces the threat of an SNP majority at Holyrood next year but while the threat of nationalism in Scotland might recede it will revive again in England as Farage makes yet another comeback
Farage has zero chance in ANY local election. He's been a miserable failure 20 years in any election against real candidates for real jobs, even when he had a followership.
Now, reduced to advocating anti-lockdown policies 70% of the British public reject and acting as the British mouthpiece of his deranged loser chum - who by May will be broke and doing perpetual perp walks in most US states - he'll be lucky to average more than a percent or two.
Even a percent or two could cost the Tories a few marginal wards
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Cruz is ultra rightwing but he is also formidably intelligent, graduating cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant".
If he was that good, how come he only got a cum laude and a magna?
Magna cum laude is the US equivalent of a 1st, there used to be a summa cum laude for the top 1 to 2% too but most institutions do not use that now
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
"if true" doing a LOT of heavy lifting there.
The Russians are not cowboys. Their scientists are highly capable. They probably do have a working vaccine in development.
Novichok seems to work ok.
Poor taste as one person died, but I’d argue not that effective, as the scripals didn’t die. (Although I’m assured by contacts in the know that they would have if the attack hadn’t been so close to portion down - local knowledge played a key role.)
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Cruz is ultra rightwing but he is also formidably intelligent, graduating cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant".
If he was that good, how come he only got a cum laude and a magna?
Magna cum laude is the US equivalent of a 1st, there used to be a summa cum laude for the top 1 to 2% too but most institutions do not use that now
I wasn't aware that some institutions don't award summa any more, but what was the practice at Princeton and Harvard when Cruz was studying in the 90s? Penn was certainly still awarding summa as of 2000 as my wife only just missed getting it and had to settle for a magna.
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Cruz is ultra rightwing but he is also formidably intelligent, graduating cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant".
If he was that good, how come he only got a cum laude and a magna?
What's that? The American equivalent of a Desmond?
Yeah very roughly cum laude is a Douglas, magna cum laude is a Desmond to a a low Taiwan. To be really outstanding you need a summa cum laude which is roughly a high 2:1 to a Patti.
Not to mention that it takes Americans (and Scots) four years to get what the English achieve in three.
No it isn't, cum laude is awarded to those in the top 20-30% of their class, magna cum laude is awarded to those in the top 10 to 15% of their class and summa cum laude is awarded to those in the top 1 to 5% of their class (though only a few institutions still award the latter).
Given 28% of UK students now get a 1st class degree, magna cum laude is the equivalent of a reasonably high 1st class degree at least
What happens to the Georgia EC votes if the hand recount isn't finished in time? (I realise Biden still wins without Georgia).
I believe the Secretary of State must certify results by 20th November under state law, although there's time to rectify that if he fails to do so as Electoral College don't meet until 14th December. My strong assumption is Democrats would file a case to require the SoS to certify if we came to 21st and he'd not done so, and that they'd get that.
They will complete by 20th. A hand count for just one race isn't that difficult - a lot of the issues are over electronic ballots, multiple papers, verifying absentee ballots etc.
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
Pfizer were going to do an initial early analysis when they got to 34 cases. They decided that wasn't robust enough, so went for 64. When they checked they had 96.
The Russian data is based on 20 cases. (Though how they get 92% from 20 cases, I don't know.
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Cruz is ultra rightwing but he is also formidably intelligent, graduating cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant".
If he was that good, how come he only got a cum laude and a magna?
Magna cum laude is the US equivalent of a 1st, there used to be a summa cum laude for the top 1 to 2% too but most institutions do not use that now
I wasn't aware that some institutions don't award summa any more, but what was the practice at Princeton and Harvard when Cruz was studying in the 90s? Penn was certainly still awarding summa as of 2000 as my wife only just missed getting it and had to settle for a magna.
Not that intelligence is the key characteristic of getting elected President of course given your wife got far better grades than Biden, Trump and George W Bush for example
I do find it truly, truly amazing that anyone would ever vote for Ted Cruz.
Cruz of course won 25% of Republican primary voters support and 11 states in the 2016 GOP primaries and was runner up to Trump, now Trump has lost his re election bid I would expect Cruz to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024
Cruz is ultra rightwing but he is also formidably intelligent, graduating cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant".
If he was that good, how come he only got a cum laude and a magna?
What's that? The American equivalent of a Desmond?
Yeah very roughly cum laude is a Douglas, magna cum laude is a Desmond to a a low Taiwan. To be really outstanding you need a summa cum laude which is roughly a high 2:1 to a Patti.
Not to mention that it takes Americans (and Scots) four years to get what the English achieve in three.
No it isn't, cum laude is awarded to those in the top 20-30% of their class, magna cum laude is awarded to those in the top 10 to 15% of their class and summa cum laude is awarded to those in the top 1 to 5% of their class (though only a few institutions still award the latter).
Given 28% of UK students now get a 1st class degree, magna cum laude is the equivalent of a reasonably high 1st class degree at least
Do we know for how long the Pfizer vaccine confers immunity yet?
That's just one of a number of questions for which there aren't currently any answers. The euphoria over Monday's announcement seems to be such that anyone asking questions or having doubts is castigated as being in need of psychiatric help so here goes (again):
1) I've seen reports of volunteers suffering side effects from the vaccine. Should we not be told what the risks and potential side effects are or could be?
2) It's my understanding it's not one injection but two - the second 3-4 weeks after the first. Can anyone confirm?
3) Will this vaccine provide permanent immunity or will we need a "booster" shot(s) every year?
4) Understandably and rightly, there will be a phased distribution of the vaccine starting with the over-85s, carers and NHS workers. After that will come other vulnerable individuals and then (presumably) it will be made available to all older (60+) people?
5) Do people think the vaccine should be made freely available across the world? Clearly, it's going to be hard to stop corrupt Governments either a) seeking to profit from the vaccine by charging their citizens or b) providing the vaccine only for the elite or supporters and leaving large (or smaller) segments of the population defenceless against the virus?
Thanks in advance.
1) The safet data isn't out yet but it will be. It's being compiled. Anyone saying there are side effects is talking nonsense so far as nobody knew her who had the vaccine and who had placebo. Pfizer will get the safety data third week in November at which point it will be made public as part of the authorisation procedure. It can't be authorised until this happens, if the safety data is positive they will apply for (and get) emergency authorisation but it's waiting on that data currently.
2) Correct. 3 weeks apart. As far as I know all vaccines in Phase III are the same on this. Certainly Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AZ both do.
3) Unknown as far as I know. Talk of it possibly being an annual shot like flu vaccine.
4) Yes, in stages. There are ten priority groups in order from care home residents and staff (highest priority), over 80s and NHS frontline staff (second highest) then down through the ages down to at risk under 50s last. Not at risk under 50s are only ones not currently scheduled to get it, for us it's a case of wait and decide what happens to us later on, but all over 50s will get it.
5) Available yes. Freely is another question but yes there's major efforts to get it rolled out worldwide. The UK is very rare worldwide in having free at point of use healthcare.
What happens to the Georgia EC votes if the hand recount isn't finished in time? (I realise Biden still wins without Georgia).
This isn't technically a recount (which would normally only happen after votes have been certified) so i'm not sure what its status is if it is unfinished. If i had to guess i would imagine that the State Supreme Court was grant an extension to the official certification deadline.
Have I missed the comments on the Russian claim that their vaccine had 92% efficacy?
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
Pfizer were going to do an initial early analysis when they got to 34 cases. They decided that wasn't robust enough, so went for 64. When they checked they had 96.
The Russian data is based on 20 cases. (Though how they get 92% from 20 cases, I don't know.
1.6 people who got sick were given the vaccine and 18.4 people had the placebo clearly.
The numbers weren't just made up to sound positive, that would be Russophobia.
It's not been a good week for Labour in London. We've had a defection to the Conservatives in Islington - a former Mayor, Rakhia Ismail, switched to the Tories and giving them their first presence on the Council since 1994.
Section 114 notices are very uncommon - the last was Northamptonshire Council in 2018 which ended up in the Council's abolition. I doubt the same will happen with Croydon but it may just be a salutary warning to many Councils struggling with the cost of Covid.
In all fairness, Croydon's problems pre-date Covid and may not be unconnected to an attempt to build an Investment portfolio.
When I lived in Sutton and was active there as an LD, Croydon was this curious anomaly which only elected Conservative and Labour Councillors. The LDs did eventually get a Councillor elected in Coulsdon East in 1998 and he remained on the Council until 2006.
The switch of control from Conservative to Labour in 1994 was dramatic. Sir Peter (now Lord) Bowness had been Council leader since the mid-70s and was a big figure in London local Government but Labour had been closing in winning 29 seats in 1990 against the 41 for the Conservatives.
In 1994, the Conservatives were swept out of the north of the Borough and Labour gained 11 seats to end with 40 leaving the Conservatives on 30 and Valerie Shawcross in charge.
I remember that election as in Sutton we reduced the Conservatives to just 4 seats and they ceased to be the official opposition as Labour won 5 seats and the LDs won 47.
Do we know for how long the Pfizer vaccine confers immunity yet?
That's just one of a number of questions for which there aren't currently any answers. The euphoria over Monday's announcement seems to be such that anyone asking questions or having doubts is castigated as being in need of psychiatric help so here goes (again):
1) I've seen reports of volunteers suffering side effects from the vaccine. Should we not be told what the risks and potential side effects are or could be?
2) It's my understanding it's not one injection but two - the second 3-4 weeks after the first. Can anyone confirm?
3) Will this vaccine provide permanent immunity or will we need a "booster" shot(s) every year?
4) Understandably and rightly, there will be a phased distribution of the vaccine starting with the over-85s, carers and NHS workers. After that will come other vulnerable individuals and then (presumably) it will be made available to all older (60+) people?
5) Do people think the vaccine should be made freely available across the world? Clearly, it's going to be hard to stop corrupt Governments either a) seeking to profit from the vaccine by charging their citizens or b) providing the vaccine only for the elite or supporters and leaving large (or smaller) segments of the population defenceless against the virus?
Thanks in advance.
Not heard of significant side effects, but most vaccinations have some such as ache in the arm, possibly a transient brief fever. Pfizer is indeed 2 shots spaced out. It’s not known how long it will work, but my guess is at least a year. The roll out looks likely to be as you describe. Assuming other vaccines are effective, it will be easier to cover all the population by summer to autumn. As for roll out to the rest of the world, that’s a really difficult one for governments. No pm would want to put foreign lives ahead of uk, especially with sis one death is too many. Ultimately it should be of course.
Comments
https://www.creativebloq.com/news/botched-spain-statue
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/10/oxford-v-pfizer-costs-logistics-could-still-see-oxfords-vaccine/
https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1326471450564374530
As is this ?
https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1326423353612185605
Second, Germany has never had a minority government at the national level, and rarely at the state level (there are currently none). As we saw last time, German parties prefer months of negotiations to a minority government. The afd being in Parliament makes a minority government even less likely, as it would make their MPs more likely to decide votes and no other party wants to give them the possibility of claiming such wins.
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1326530952487702528
As to counting "bundles" and suchlike, wipe your minds of UK parliamentary election experience, where just one race is on each ballot paper and number of total ballots is limited. Whereas in US there are multiple races on each ballot, jurisdictions for counting are often VERY large and initial counting is almost all done via machine using a variety of technologies.
'...A type of chess problem in which both sides cooperate in order to achieve the goal of checkmating Black.'
Such mates are unusual but not unkown in normal play too.
So was he lying then, or is he lying now?*
* it's a trick question, of course, as the answer is both.
Why are we trying to play chess in the middle of the Atlantic again?
https://twitter.com/J_Bloodworth/status/1326557175666368513?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
This could get very weird.
Biden's obviously won, everyone agrees, probably even Trump does. But Trump could still win..
My best outcome is that the whole thing is declared null and void (I'm deeply all red), and I guess there may just be the slightest sliver of a hope for that! (I wouldn't back 1000s mind)
But it's worth remembering that these numbers are tiny. Even if it was £100/person, it would only cost £5bn to vaccinate the entire British adult population. That's chicken feed.
All is circular.
Of course news of what transpires at EV meetings from sea to shining sea will be reported. My guess is that there may be a few faithless electors, likely from the Biggest Loser.
Note that in 2016 WA State had several Electors who did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton despite the fact she won the state hands-down. Don't know the details, but my distinct impression is that the state Democratic Party took positive steps to prevent a repeat - mostly by being more selective as to who they pick for as electors.
Very good news if true, as it's based on a different principle from the Pfizer one - the same principle used by the Oxford vaccine. It would be a further indication that most of the vaccines in development may be effective.
Seriously?
I agree with you that in total it's worth paying, though, at least for the first year. Not sure about future years...
--AS
https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/
He was Solicitor General of Texas too before being elected a US Senator for the state in 2012
Trump derangement syndrome is a real thing, suffered by his fans and enemies alike, but this situation is past psychology now. It doesn't matter how fervently a small number of people love or loathe him. They can pour their money into a losing bet but they can't change physics. The past is done. Thermodynamics has called it for Biden.
(I'm not sure whether the Oxford vaccine can be used as a booster, since the host may acquire immunity to the vector. I'd like to know what an immunologist thinks of this.)
--AS
Newt:
It won't make any difference.
It's Russia coming out and saying "ours is 92% effective" immediately after Pfizer claimed 90% that has the bulls1t detector reading 11.
Let's wait for that to be verified before getting out the party poppers.
Has this ever happened before?
In all seriousness, RT is the Reichssender Hamburg of the 21st Century. I don't think they should even be allowed to broadcast in this country.
--AS
If you're comparing deaths within 28 days of a test but a lot of positives haven't had a test then it's entirely possible if not probable a lot of deaths haven't been caught either.
Nate silver's early take on the polling this time around
tldr it wasn't that bad, really
They are literally giving their money away. It is a far right idiot tax. Free money.
1) I've seen reports of volunteers suffering side effects from the vaccine. Should we not be told what the risks and potential side effects are or could be?
2) It's my understanding it's not one injection but two - the second 3-4 weeks after the first. Can anyone confirm?
3) Will this vaccine provide permanent immunity or will we need a "booster" shot(s) every year?
4) Understandably and rightly, there will be a phased distribution of the vaccine starting with the over-85s, carers and NHS workers. After that will come other vulnerable individuals and then (presumably) it will be made available to all older (60+) people?
5) Do people think the vaccine should be made freely available across the world? Clearly, it's going to be hard to stop corrupt Governments either a) seeking to profit from the vaccine by charging their citizens or b) providing the vaccine only for the elite or supporters and leaving large (or smaller) segments of the population defenceless against the virus?
Thanks in advance.
Chiafalo v. Washington
The Democratic ticket of Clinton and Kaine won the popular vote in Washington, thus the slate of twelve Democratic electors were appointed. Four of these electors, who had signed pledges to vote for the Democratic nominee, voted for candidates other than Clinton/Kaine. Per the law, they were each fined. Three of the four electors, Peter Bret Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John, challenged the fine as a violation of their constitutional rights, arguing that the state's authority over them as electors ended once they were appointed and they were free to vote as they chose under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
At an initial hearing, an administrative law judge upheld the fines, stating he had no jurisdiction to rule on constitutional arguments, only whether the fines were applied in accordance with state law. At the first trial at the Thurston County Superior Court in 2017, the judge ruled against the constitutional argument and deemed the fines permissible.
The three electors then appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which in May 2019 upheld the lower court ruling with an 8–1 vote. The majority opinion states that "The power of electors to vote comes from the State, and the elector has no personal right to that vote" to justify the fine. The lone dissent argues that the plenary power of the state to appoint electors may not be conflated with control over the electors once voting has begun, in line with Justice Jackson's concerns in Ray v. Blair.
Subsequently, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill into law in May 2019 that changes the faithless elector law, such that should an elector fail to vote for the candidate of their party, the elector is removed from their position and a new elector is then appointed, rather than allowing the elector to vote faithlessly and be subject to fines after the fact. The new law is analogous to the law in question in the Colorado case.
On October 7, 2019, the three electors appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court. . . .
On January 17, 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to hear both the Washington case and the Colorado case, Colorado Department of State v. Baca . . . .
The Court issued its rulings in both Chiafalo and Baca on July 6, 2020. Chiafalo was a unanimous ruling of the court, affirming the lower court's decision that states may enforce the pledge of an elector in the presidential election; Baca was decided per curiam (with Sotomayor recused) reversing the Court of Appeal's judgement "for the reasons stated in Chiafalo..."
SSI here - In my humble opinion, fines AFTER the fact are worthless. BUT the replacement of faithless electors by someone who actually DOES respect the popular vote in their state for President, IS an effective step.
Not to mention that it takes Americans (and Scots) four years to get what the English achieve in three.
Given 28% of UK students now get a 1st class degree, magna cum laude is the equivalent of a reasonably high 1st class degree at least
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_honors
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/16-01-2020/sb255-higher-education-student-statistics/qualifications#:~:text=The percentage of students achieving,class honours than male students.
They will complete by 20th. A hand count for just one race isn't that difficult - a lot of the issues are over electronic ballots, multiple papers, verifying absentee ballots etc.
The Russian data is based on 20 cases. (Though how they get 92% from 20 cases, I don't know.
2) Correct. 3 weeks apart. As far as I know all vaccines in Phase III are the same on this. Certainly Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AZ both do.
3) Unknown as far as I know. Talk of it possibly being an annual shot like flu vaccine.
4) Yes, in stages. There are ten priority groups in order from care home residents and staff (highest priority), over 80s and NHS frontline staff (second highest) then down through the ages down to at risk under 50s last. Not at risk under 50s are only ones not currently scheduled to get it, for us it's a case of wait and decide what happens to us later on, but all over 50s will get it.
5) Available yes. Freely is another question but yes there's major efforts to get it rolled out worldwide. The UK is very rare worldwide in having free at point of use healthcare.
He's losing Fox news. Needs to read "How to coup 101"
https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1326600581604024320?s=20
The numbers weren't just made up to sound positive, that would be Russophobia.
It's not been a good week for Labour in London. We've had a defection to the Conservatives in Islington - a former Mayor, Rakhia Ismail, switched to the Tories and giving them their first presence on the Council since 1994.
Now we have Croydon Council in trouble:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/croydon-council-effectively-bankrupt-section-114-b66240.html
Section 114 notices are very uncommon - the last was Northamptonshire Council in 2018 which ended up in the Council's abolition. I doubt the same will happen with Croydon but it may just be a salutary warning to many Councils struggling with the cost of Covid.
In all fairness, Croydon's problems pre-date Covid and may not be unconnected to an attempt to build an Investment portfolio.
When I lived in Sutton and was active there as an LD, Croydon was this curious anomaly which only elected Conservative and Labour Councillors. The LDs did eventually get a Councillor elected in Coulsdon East in 1998 and he remained on the Council until 2006.
The switch of control from Conservative to Labour in 1994 was dramatic. Sir Peter (now Lord) Bowness had been Council leader since the mid-70s and was a big figure in London local Government but Labour had been closing in winning 29 seats in 1990 against the 41 for the Conservatives.
In 1994, the Conservatives were swept out of the north of the Borough and Labour gained 11 seats to end with 40 leaving the Conservatives on 30 and Valerie Shawcross in charge.
I remember that election as in Sutton we reduced the Conservatives to just 4 seats and they ceased to be the official opposition as Labour won 5 seats and the LDs won 47.