Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.
It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.
Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
I agree with this although I imagine with a different slant to you. The notion that people succumb to their baser instincts and vote for populist hatemongers such as Donald Trump purely because they are struggling financially is a false comfort blanket. An empty bank account and poor prospects no doubt increases the appeal but it in no way explains it. For the hardcore Trump base - and for equivalents elsewhere - there is a simpler and imo better explanation. Nasty people are attracted to nasty political leaders and nasty politics - by which I mean a politics which validates and celebrates their nastiness rather than attempts to challenge and educate them out of it and/or shames them for it. I know this is an unPC sentiment, and totally contra to the traditional position of the Left that I am normally in tune with, but there you go. No point shying away from the truth if it is the truth.
B*llocks. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect that they get shown by their PC-focused "leaders" who sprout the latest nonsense whilst feathering their own nests and protecting their own interests.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
I'd be surprised if whoever wrote that could put their own clothes on in the morning.
The journalist who wrote that supposedly has a degree in Biology....face palm. Obviously missed the modules that covered reading scientific papers of real world medical trials.
Then again, these days, avoiding getting your degree is like avoiding getting the Iron Cross (2nd class) when the Crown Prince was around.
The Oxford vaccine is easier to transport and store than the Pfizer and Moderna ones, and it will be cheaper thanks to the IP policies that the university and Astra Zeneca have signed up to. It could also reduce asymptomatic transmission. We're looking at a potentially huge win here.
We did a review of the IP strategies being followed by all the covid vaccine leaders last week. This is what we said about Oxford/Astra Zeneca:
A third approach has been adopted by the University of Oxford and its partner AstraZeneca towards their Phase 3 candidate AZD1222 (formerly known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). Back in April, Oxford University Innovation’s Adam Stoten spoke to IAMabout its plan to provide expedited access to the university’s vaccine-related IP. Its default approach was to issue non-exclusive, royalty-free licences to support at-cost or cost + small margin supply during the pandemic. In this respect, OUI’s strategy resembled similar commitments made by other academic institutions, such as Stanford University, Harvard University, MIT and Knowledge Transfer Ireland. Whether its subsequent agreement with AstraZeneca is consistent with this approach or a departure from it has been the subject of some debate. The UK company has been granted an exclusive – rather than non-exclusive – licence to develop the vaccine, but it has issued a large number of sub-licences giving companies the ability to supply markets around the world. The extent to which these provide exclusivity for sub-licensees in specific jurisdictions is not entirely clear from public pronouncements, but the company has expressed commitment to building up several parallel supply chains. While its CEO Pascal Soriot has emphasised the importance of IP for combatting covid-19, AstraZeneca has consistently said that it will not make a profit from vaccines sales during the pandemic. It has also licensed one billion doses to be produced by the Serum Institute of India for 57 poorer countries. A degree of controversy arose after it emerged that AstraZeneca could declare the pandemic – and therefore its non-profit commitment – over as early July 2021. The company has since stated that its commitment to supply low-income countries at cost will continue in perpetuity.
Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.
It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.
Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
I agree with this although I imagine with a different slant to you. The notion that people succumb to their baser instincts and vote for populist hatemongers such as Donald Trump purely because they are struggling financially is a false comfort blanket. An empty bank account and poor prospects no doubt increases the appeal but it in no way explains it. For the hardcore Trump base - and for equivalents elsewhere - there is a simpler and imo better explanation. Nasty people are attracted to nasty political leaders and nasty politics - by which I mean a politics which validates and celebrates their nastiness rather than attempts to challenge and educate them out of it and/or shames them for it. I know this is an unPC sentiment, and totally contra to the traditional position of the Left that I am normally in tune with, but there you go. No point shying away from the truth if it is the truth.
B*llocks. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect that they get shown by their PC-focused "leaders" who sprout the latest nonsense whilst feathering their own nests and protecting their own interests.
Thanks to everyone so far who replied with their views on whether a 'normal' wedding/reception on 1st May is likely to be possible. As a few of you noted, the challenge with wedding planning is how far in advance we need to make decisions and sign contracts or adapt them. We might be able to push any decision on whether we scale back the wedding until mid January to see what things are looking like. Any other views are welcome; I find it useful to get outsider perspectives as sometimes I cannot see the wood for the trees when the decision is so close to me!
There is always the option of a minimal wedding now and have a party much later when the dust has settled (which also saves on the specifically wedding-related costs of the latter event, which is also now much easier to organise at shorter notice). Like the common small wedding plus bigger party, just not on the same day.
I know a pair who got married with just the celebrant and two witnesses on that principle, and went straight home afterward. They didn't want to wait, for good reasons, but equally they didn't want to put anyone at risk. Their wedding had already been scrapped in the first lockdown, and they had no idea when things would settle (and how).
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
Yes, that`s what I thought. Oh dear, doesn`t bode well.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Well, well: I asked on Saturday why the independent investigator had not interviewed the Home Secretary’s former Private Secretary and today we learn why. He was prevented from doing so.
The only question is why he didn’t resign earlier.
Perhaps he thought what he had was already sufficient to force her removal, and only resigned when it was clear that wasn’t happening.
Maybe. But speaking as a professional investigator you really should not be concerned with the ultimate outcome. The disciplinary decision should be made by someone other than the investigator - to avoid the judge in your own cause problem. You can recommend of course.
But your essential task is to get all the facts so that others can make the decision. Being prevented from doing so undermines you as an investigator and undermines the quality of your final report. As happened here - see all the Patel supporters saying that she was not told about how her behaviour came across when it looks as if that that was simply not true (though it is a pretty feeble excuse in any event).
Maybe he did not want to make this an issue about him. So I am not criticising him because he was probably put in a very difficult position. Investigations should never be about the ego of the investigator. And he probably did not imagine - as you say - that the PM would ignore his report.
The irony is that the PM could have given her a warning which would have been enough of a compromise to get him through this. But my reading is that the PM simply does not think that any rules at all should apply to him or his government. We have the “divine right of kings” reinvented for the 21st century.
Less “Majesty’s divine right” and more the toddler”s “I want, I get”.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
Well in that case the 90% figure is what everyone should be talking about then.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
Here's a question....the government have leaked all this go wild for a week at christmas, when they did this did they know the AZ vaccine was ready? If so, surely they should have been, we need to stick to the course, there is going to be more than enough supply for life to be back to normal by easter (thst is what hancock has just said).
Hancock is bright enough (or experienced enough) to have realised this messaging is critically important. Lots of backbench (and cabinet) MPs are half-witted Mail surrogates who wAnT To SAve CHRistmAs.
For me, I’m staying at home this year. I want my relatives to be alive for Easter when we can meet up safely and celebrate the resurrection of Christ and the triumph of human spirit and ingenuity.
It's all calculated risk, albeit we don't know the precise inputs.
I have been to see my 90-yr old mother, who lives on her own, regularly for the past six months to sit, chat, discuss books, play chess, etc.
She wanted to, I wanted to. She knew the risks, such as they were, or at least the general risk and was happy nevertheless. So risky as it was, my mother has not suffered any loneliness, staring at relatives through windows, isolation, or Covid-related depression since this all began.
That was worth it. Others' views may differ.
But I'm with you on looking forward to Easter and celebrating the Chocolate bunnies.
Sure, my parents have done the same with my Grandmother. Bubbling single people and another household isn’t particularly risky, and has been a good policy in my view. The issue is around having big, six to seven household Christmas visits where you can potentially end up with all of them having a Covid case. It just isn’t worth it in my view when a vaccine is just a month or two off.
Depends - everyone must make their own decisions. My view throughout has been everyone should be allowed to define their own boundaries. So assuming granny isn't being coerced then all is good.
And it might be that people think this Christmas with those people is essential to their well-being on whatever level they deem important.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.
It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.
Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
I agree with this although I imagine with a different slant to you. The notion that people succumb to their baser instincts and vote for populist hatemongers such as Donald Trump purely because they are struggling financially is a false comfort blanket. An empty bank account and poor prospects no doubt increases the appeal but it in no way explains it. For the hardcore Trump base - and for equivalents elsewhere - there is a simpler and imo better explanation. Nasty people are attracted to nasty political leaders and nasty politics - by which I mean a politics which validates and celebrates their nastiness rather than attempts to challenge and educate them out of it and/or shames them for it. I know this is an unPC sentiment, and totally contra to the traditional position of the Left that I am normally in tune with, but there you go. No point shying away from the truth if it is the truth.
B*llocks. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect that they get shown by their PC-focused "leaders" who sprout the latest nonsense whilst feathering their own nests and protecting their own interests.
He, he - populism right there!
Of course - if you don't follow the line in thinking that your leaders know best, you're a populist!
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
The job of the media is to cut through the incorrect and the BS, to reveal the facts...not cut and paste a press release. It is the same with the day of death reporting / day of case reporting. They just cut and paste the numbers, even now, even after loads of people have told them, WRONG.
What this COVID crisis has revealed is that the media have f##k all idea about science and maths. But they are great at the punch and judy of Westminster who said what about whom bollocks, so that's ok.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
The job of the media is to cut through the incorrect and the BS, to reveal the facts...not cut and paste a press release. It is the same with the day of death reporting / day of case reporting. They just cut and paste the numbers, even now, even after loads of people have told them, WRONG.
Thinking about numbers is probably "populism".....
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.
It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.
Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
I agree with this although I imagine with a different slant to you. The notion that people succumb to their baser instincts and vote for populist hatemongers such as Donald Trump purely because they are struggling financially is a false comfort blanket. An empty bank account and poor prospects no doubt increases the appeal but it in no way explains it. For the hardcore Trump base - and for equivalents elsewhere - there is a simpler and imo better explanation. Nasty people are attracted to nasty political leaders and nasty politics - by which I mean a politics which validates and celebrates their nastiness rather than attempts to challenge and educate them out of it and/or shames them for it. I know this is an unPC sentiment, and totally contra to the traditional position of the Left that I am normally in tune with, but there you go. No point shying away from the truth if it is the truth.
B*llocks. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect that they get shown by their PC-focused "leaders" who sprout the latest nonsense whilst feathering their own nests and protecting their own interests.
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
Yes, that`s what I thought. Oh dear, doesn`t bode well.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
FFS....my elderly parents just phoned me to say, not sure about this Oxford vaccine it is only 70% effective. Do I think they will get the good one from America? And do I think they will be able to pay for it privately instead of this Oxford one, if the NHS force people to have the rubbish one.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
And massive credit to AZ and Cowley Tech for making it available on a not-for-profit basis to the developing world.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
Who is going to prescribe it with the 62% regimen?
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.
It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.
Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
I agree with this although I imagine with a different slant to you. The notion that people succumb to their baser instincts and vote for populist hatemongers such as Donald Trump purely because they are struggling financially is a false comfort blanket. An empty bank account and poor prospects no doubt increases the appeal but it in no way explains it. For the hardcore Trump base - and for equivalents elsewhere - there is a simpler and imo better explanation. Nasty people are attracted to nasty political leaders and nasty politics - by which I mean a politics which validates and celebrates their nastiness rather than attempts to challenge and educate them out of it and/or shames them for it. I know this is an unPC sentiment, and totally contra to the traditional position of the Left that I am normally in tune with, but there you go. No point shying away from the truth if it is the truth.
B*llocks. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect that they get shown by their PC-focused "leaders" who sprout the latest nonsense whilst feathering their own nests and protecting their own interests.
He, he - populism right there!
Of course - if you don't follow the line in thinking that your leaders know best, you're a populist!
I think that`s broadly correct. (Had enough of experts, etc.) What would be your definition of the term?
Knowing what I do about ER, the suggestion they are out for financial reasons is about as surprising as hearing Trump can't bear to admit he's lost.
I know shocking, a load of Marxists, want to crash the capitalist system, they said so from the beginning, that XR wasn't (just) about climate change. But lots of useful idiots have bigged them up.
FFS....my elderly parents just phoned me to say, not sure about this Oxford vaccine it is only 70% effective. Do I think they will get the good one from America? And do I think they will be able to pay for it privately instead of this Oxford one, if the NHS force people to have the rubbish one.
Well done media.
Yep, I wonder how much they'll have hit take up rates with their stupidity today.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
And massive credit to AZ and Cowley Tech for making it available on a not-for-profit basis to the developing world.
Great post, save the reference to 'Cowley Tech' – that and 'Fen Poly' make my skin crawl with memories of humble-bragging PBers.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
Who is going to prescribe it with the 62% regimen?
Exactly – especially as the less efficacious route actually uses more of the vaccine!!
Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.
It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.
Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
I agree with this although I imagine with a different slant to you. The notion that people succumb to their baser instincts and vote for populist hatemongers such as Donald Trump purely because they are struggling financially is a false comfort blanket. An empty bank account and poor prospects no doubt increases the appeal but it in no way explains it. For the hardcore Trump base - and for equivalents elsewhere - there is a simpler and imo better explanation. Nasty people are attracted to nasty political leaders and nasty politics - by which I mean a politics which validates and celebrates their nastiness rather than attempts to challenge and educate them out of it and/or shames them for it. I know this is an unPC sentiment, and totally contra to the traditional position of the Left that I am normally in tune with, but there you go. No point shying away from the truth if it is the truth.
B*llocks. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect that they get shown by their PC-focused "leaders" who sprout the latest nonsense whilst feathering their own nests and protecting their own interests.
He, he - populism right there!
Of course - if you don't follow the line in thinking that your leaders know best, you're a populist!
A populist is somebody who criticises the system in hyperbolic but ill-defined terms, usually impugning the motivations of their opponents and/or scapegoating a minority group while offering no concrete analysis of society's ills or workable solutions. Your post is textbook populism. No doubt you will dismiss me as a typical effete liberal, but if it helps you to take my criticism more seriously I am currently listening to Lynerd Skynerd.
I see PB’s resident bedwetter/troll is back with his dismal Trumpton fantasies again.
Nice to hear from you too again
Quick question - @williamglenn shared a video of various thesps calling for electoral college voters to ignore the 2016 result. I didn't see you condemn that as a threat to democracy. Why not?
Or, do you do, as @FrancisUrquhart said, only selective outrage depending on whose side it is?
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
And massive credit to AZ and Cowley Tech for making it available on a not-for-profit basis to the developing world.
Great post, save the reference to 'Cowley Tech' – that and 'Fen Poly' make my skin crawl with memories of humble-bragging PBers.
I wouldn't know, I went to a uni that doesn't sell its higher degrees for money.
The Oxford vaccine is just fantastic news. The only cautionary note is that it is early days on the data. But as things stand, it is a far bigger deal than either the Pfizer of Moderna vaccines, which are both very big deals.
It also shows the value of our university sector. It is of massive benefit to the UK and we should be doing all we can to ensure that continues to be the case.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
And massive credit to AZ and Cowley Tech for making it available on a not-for-profit basis to the developing world.
My non-expert view is the same. The Oxford vaccine looks like the best bet to me so far. It's cheaper, easier, will have more doses sooner, and probably be about as effective as the others in the end. Of course the real test is years away when we can see the long term outcomes, but today I'd want the Oxford vaccine.
Knowing what I do about ER, the suggestion they are out for financial reasons is about as surprising as hearing Trump can't bear to admit he's lost.
I know shocking, a load of Marxists, want to crash the capitalist system, they said so from the beginning, that XR wasn't (just) about climate change. But lots of useful idiots have bigged them up.
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
Yes, that`s what I thought. Oh dear, doesn`t bode well.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
It`s very depressing isn`t it. Project Fear becoming Project Reality. Johnson doesn`t give too chuffs about our future relationship with the EU - he`s just looking for the line of least resistance. I sincerely hope that he doesn`t try to muscle through a bad deal. If he does, what was Brexit for? I think he just wants it all to go away.
I see PB’s resident bedwetter/troll is back with his dismal Trumpton fantasies again.
Nice to hear from you too again
Quick question - @williamglenn shared a video of various thesps calling for electoral college voters to ignore the 2016 result. I didn't see you condemn that as a threat to democracy. Why not?
Or, do you do, as @FrancisUrquhart said, only selective outrage depending on whose side it is?
I don't recall Hilary Clinton filing 32 frivolous lawsuits trying to have thousands of ballots thrown out, nor Obama refusing to initiate the transition or trying to interfere with the certification of the results.
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
I see PB’s resident bedwetter/troll is back with his dismal Trumpton fantasies again.
Nice to hear from you too again
Quick question - @williamglenn shared a video of various thesps calling for electoral college voters to ignore the 2016 result. I didn't see you condemn that as a threat to democracy. Why not?
Or, do you do, as @FrancisUrquhart said, only selective outrage depending on whose side it is?
The logic of 2016 was that the candidate who won the popular vote lost the election because of an archaic voting system and that the latter should bend to the people's will.
As it happens, they were wrong in this, because above all else America bans retrospective laws. So the rules at the time of election were the rules that had to be followed.
However, there was a certain logic (albeit flawed) to their position.
What's the reasoning behind Trump's attempts to subvert the EC?
I see PB’s resident bedwetter/troll is back with his dismal Trumpton fantasies again.
Nice to hear from you too again
Quick question - @williamglenn shared a video of various thesps calling for electoral college voters to ignore the 2016 result. I didn't see you condemn that as a threat to democracy. Why not?
Or, do you do, as @FrancisUrquhart said, only selective outrage depending on whose side it is?
a) I wasn't referring to you and
b) who cares what a load of actors think/say? Trump and the GOP machinery are trying to overturn the outcome of a free and fair election –– why are you making false equivalence with a bunch of bloody actors??
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
Just what I was thinking - the press release was pretty clear.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
It's fake news because we're not going to have the full/full dose available. The half/full dose method will be used and it's 90% effective. AZ are registering full trial results scientifically, that's what they have to do. It's up to the media to provide proper context and the Guardian, Sky, the Mail and others all got it right this morning with the numbers and yet the BBC used hugely irresponsible wording in their headline.
This vaccine prevents 90% of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prevent 95% of symptomatic COVID. Those are the facts.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
Sub samples, on PB??
*Statistically significant* sub samples.
It's not just a subsample though, but a cherry-picked subsample. Hopefully they are adjusting the significance thresholds accordingly.
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
Is it just me, or does not testing all the members of a trial on a weekly basis seem like an obvious omission?
It really depends, the Pfizer vaccine is advertised as stopping 95% of symptomatic COVID, which is what people care about. That's what their vaccine is designed to do, stop people from getting symptoms and in 95% of cases that is what happens. If you don't care about asymptomatic spread because everyone who is liable to experience serious symptoms has been vaccinated then this is a well designed trial.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
There was a paper yesterday from China which seemed to show that there was almost no asymptomatic transfer of the virus, unless I misunderstood. So the Pfizer jab might get rid of the virus pretty quickly.
There are, however, a number of other studies that have traced asymptomatic transmission in multiple cases, so it's not really clear-cut.
The best indications would be that asymptomatic people are less infectious but not non-infectious.
The Oxford vaccine is just fantastic news. The only cautionary note is that it is early days on the data. But as things stand, it is a far bigger deal than either the Pfizer of Moderna vaccines, which are both very big deals.
It also shows the value of our university sector. It is of massive benefit to the UK and we should be doing all we can to ensure that continues to be the case.
Everyone will ape their approach.
(And of course, will be able to given the terms AZ and OU are sharing their research on.)
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
How many stupid kids are going to go along with this sort of “action”, and find out only later that they’ll not be able to get a mortgage for a decade or more as a result?
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
Yes, that`s what I thought. Oh dear, doesn`t bode well.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Except Boris has a majority of 80 whereas May had no majority at all. Boris has the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher, he does not need to call an election, he already has won one by a near landslide.
So Boris can afford to have IDS, Baker, Francois, Cash and Redwood etc vote against any trade deal he gets with the EU and still almost certainly get it through the Commons even if the Opposition all vote against it too.
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
Is it just me, or does not testing all the members of a trial on a weekly basis seem like an obvious omission?
It really depends, the Pfizer vaccine is advertised as stopping 95% of symptomatic COVID, which is what people care about. That's what their vaccine is designed to do, stop people from getting symptoms and in 95% of cases that is what happens. If you don't care about asymptomatic spread because everyone who is liable to experience serious symptoms has been vaccinated then this is a well designed trial.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
There was a paper yesterday from China which seemed to show that there was almost no asymptomatic transfer of the virus, unless I misunderstood. So the Pfizer jab might get rid of the virus pretty quickly.
There are, however, a number of other studies that have traced asymptomatic transmission in multiple cases, so it's not really clear-cut.
The best indications would be that asymptomatic people are less infectious but not non-infectious.
Yeah wasn't that Bolton superspreader event linked back to an asymptomatic person going on a pub crawl after testing positive because he had no symptoms and felt normal?
Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.
It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.
Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
I agree with this although I imagine with a different slant to you. The notion that people succumb to their baser instincts and vote for populist hatemongers such as Donald Trump purely because they are struggling financially is a false comfort blanket. An empty bank account and poor prospects no doubt increases the appeal but it in no way explains it. For the hardcore Trump base - and for equivalents elsewhere - there is a simpler and imo better explanation. Nasty people are attracted to nasty political leaders and nasty politics - by which I mean a politics which validates and celebrates their nastiness rather than attempts to challenge and educate them out of it and/or shames them for it. I know this is an unPC sentiment, and totally contra to the traditional position of the Left that I am normally in tune with, but there you go. No point shying away from the truth if it is the truth.
B*llocks. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect that they get shown by their PC-focused "leaders" who sprout the latest nonsense whilst feathering their own nests and protecting their own interests.
He, he - populism right there!
Of course - if you don't follow the line in thinking that your leaders know best, you're a populist!
A populist is somebody who criticises the system in hyperbolic but ill-defined terms, usually impugning the motivations of their opponents and/or scapegoating a minority group while offering no concrete analysis of society's ills or workable solutions. Your post is textbook populism. No doubt you will dismiss me as a typical effete liberal, but if it helps you to take my criticism more seriously I am currently listening to Lynerd Skynerd.
Are you listening to it in your General Lee ?
In seriousness, just reading "Winners Take All" by Anand Giridharadas - spot on in his description of how those at the commanding heights have co-opted the progress agenda to suit their own needs
How many stupid kids are going to go along with this sort of “action”, and find out only later that they’ll not be able to get a mortgage for a decade or more as a result?
I hope the Trustifarians recommending try this first.
Trump: I am more convinced today than I was yesterday that he is desires to take the country into a dictatorship and only the intervention of the Chiefs of Staff can save the day. We are on a knife edge of biblical proportions.
I recommend for you have a nice pot of tea, a few ginger snap biscuits and adopt a recumbent pose until 20th January.
I see PB’s resident bedwetter/troll is back with his dismal Trumpton fantasies again.
Nice to hear from you too again
Quick question - @williamglenn shared a video of various thesps calling for electoral college voters to ignore the 2016 result. I didn't see you condemn that as a threat to democracy. Why not?
Or, do you do, as @FrancisUrquhart said, only selective outrage depending on whose side it is?
The logic of 2016 was that the candidate who won the popular vote lost the election because of an archaic voting system and that the latter should bend to the people's will.
As it happens, they were wrong in this, because above all else America bans retrospective laws. So the rules at the time of election were the rules that had to be followed.
However, there was a certain logic (albeit flawed) to their position.
What's the reasoning behind Trump's attempts to subvert the EC?
The reasoning behind what Trump is doing is
1. He genuinely believes there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.
And 2.
Given he believes 1. then he has to hold out as long as possible to give a republican a chance to win again, even if he loses this time around.
Except it isn't, because it's not all about the money.
It's remarkable how some people like Andrew Adonis keep failing to realise this.
Perhaps that's partly deliberate, even if at a sub-conscious level, because he'd far prefer it to be about the money otherwise he'd have to accept engaging with the difficult socio-cultural issues it throws up.
I agree with this although I imagine with a different slant to you. The notion that people succumb to their baser instincts and vote for populist hatemongers such as Donald Trump purely because they are struggling financially is a false comfort blanket. An empty bank account and poor prospects no doubt increases the appeal but it in no way explains it. For the hardcore Trump base - and for equivalents elsewhere - there is a simpler and imo better explanation. Nasty people are attracted to nasty political leaders and nasty politics - by which I mean a politics which validates and celebrates their nastiness rather than attempts to challenge and educate them out of it and/or shames them for it. I know this is an unPC sentiment, and totally contra to the traditional position of the Left that I am normally in tune with, but there you go. No point shying away from the truth if it is the truth.
B*llocks. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect that they get shown by their PC-focused "leaders" who sprout the latest nonsense whilst feathering their own nests and protecting their own interests.
He, he - populism right there!
Of course - if you don't follow the line in thinking that your leaders know best, you're a populist!
A populist is somebody who criticises the system in hyperbolic but ill-defined terms, usually impugning the motivations of their opponents and/or scapegoating a minority group while offering no concrete analysis of society's ills or workable solutions. Your post is textbook populism. No doubt you will dismiss me as a typical effete liberal, but if it helps you to take my criticism more seriously I am currently listening to Lynerd Skynerd.
Hyperbolic but ill-defined terms, like “Basket of Deplorables” or “Inherently Racist”..?
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
You are describing a third world basket case. Despite that a lot of Trump loonies who are using the public forum that is the internet to talk a load of bollocks this isn't the case. The checks and balances and rule of law function as well as anywhere. Your misinformation is seriously misleading particularly to people who believe everything they read. In other words most Trump supporters.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
Who is going to prescribe it with the 62% regimen?
They had two regimens. How many did the other vaccines have? Presumably just one or else they suppressed the less favourable ones.
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
Yes, that`s what I thought. Oh dear, doesn`t bode well.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Except Boris has a majority of 80 whereas May had no majority at all. Boris has the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher, he does not need to call an election, he already has won one by a near landslide.
So Boris can afford to have IDS, Baker, Francois, Cash and Redwood etc vote against any trade deal he gets with the EU and still almost certainly get it through the Commons even if the Opposition all vote against it too.
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
Yes, 70 is a smaller number than 90.
Pfizer and AZN weren't counting the same thing, though, so any comparison - even using their misleading headline figure - is totally invalid.
How many stupid kids are going to go along with this sort of “action”, and find out only later that they’ll not be able to get a mortgage for a decade or more as a result?
While the organizers with names like Jemima Forthing-Smythe get daddy to bail them out.
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
Just what I was thinking - the press release was pretty clear.
I think it is appalling that people are suggesting that the correct way to report a story is to ask an expert to read the information.
If you can't have Jeremy Vine jumping around wearing a kids party cowboy outfit - in the bowels of Christ, how *can* they report the news?
FFS....my elderly parents just phoned me to say, not sure about this Oxford vaccine it is only 70% effective. Do I think they will get the good one from America? And do I think they will be able to pay for it privately instead of this Oxford one, if the NHS force people to have the rubbish one.
Well done media.
One of the worst things the media are doing is being surprised every Tuesday that the Covid-19 figures are higher than the Monday or weekend figures even though the same thing has been happening since March. It's obviously a reporting issue rather than anything to do with the real situation on the ground.
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
Yes, that`s what I thought. Oh dear, doesn`t bode well.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Of course not. If no deal is set to be a disaster, Labour will want to say that "we tried to stop it".
There are 364 Conservative MPs. So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
How many stupid kids are going to go along with this sort of “action”, and find out only later that they’ll not be able to get a mortgage for a decade or more as a result?
I hope the Trustifarians recommending try this first.
Generally speaking it is a bad idea to announce the crime you will be committing, and doubly so when it creates a paper trail.
Oxford just held a press briefing where Prof Pollard said he’s happy that the 90% sub sample is large and robust enough to take to the regulators. That’s good news and allays some of the confusion earlier about hints of this and that.
Sub samples, on PB??
*Statistically significant* sub samples.
It's not just a subsample though, but a cherry-picked subsample. Hopefully they are adjusting the significance thresholds accordingly.
I don't understand why you say it's "cherry picked".
They used two different regimens, and have reported separate results for each. What would have been the point of using two different regimens, if they weren't planning to analyse them separately? If it had been an _unplanned_ analysis, you could obviously describe it as "cherry picked". But if they weren't planning to analyse the results of this regimen, why would they have used it?
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
Is it just me, or does not testing all the members of a trial on a weekly basis seem like an obvious omission?
It really depends, the Pfizer vaccine is advertised as stopping 95% of symptomatic COVID, which is what people care about. That's what their vaccine is designed to do, stop people from getting symptoms and in 95% of cases that is what happens. If you don't care about asymptomatic spread because everyone who is liable to experience serious symptoms has been vaccinated then this is a well designed trial.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
There was a paper yesterday from China which seemed to show that there was almost no asymptomatic transfer of the virus, unless I misunderstood. So the Pfizer jab might get rid of the virus pretty quickly.
There are, however, a number of other studies that have traced asymptomatic transmission in multiple cases, so it's not really clear-cut.
The best indications would be that asymptomatic people are less infectious but not non-infectious.
Yeah wasn't that Bolton superspreader event linked back to an asymptomatic person going on a pub crawl after testing positive because he had no symptoms and felt normal?
One metastudy (drawing upon 70+ other studies) suggested that:
"Evidence from early in the pandemic suggests that most SARS-CoV-2 infections are not asymptomatic throughout the course of infection, and that transmission by presymptomatic cases accounts for around 40-60% of transmission and asymptomatic cases accounts for around 15% of transmission."
Which would imply that asymptomatic people are usually somewhat less infectious (as people who stay asymptomatic seem be around 20-35% of the whole), but certainly capable of infecting others.
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
Is it just me, or does not testing all the members of a trial on a weekly basis seem like an obvious omission?
It really depends, the Pfizer vaccine is advertised as stopping 95% of symptomatic COVID, which is what people care about. That's what their vaccine is designed to do, stop people from getting symptoms and in 95% of cases that is what happens. If you don't care about asymptomatic spread because everyone who is liable to experience serious symptoms has been vaccinated then this is a well designed trial.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
There was a paper yesterday from China which seemed to show that there was almost no asymptomatic transfer of the virus, unless I misunderstood. So the Pfizer jab might get rid of the virus pretty quickly.
The paper is from a post-lockdown study from earlier in the year:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w?s=09 ...Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan....
What it shows is no demonstrated transmission from the asymptomatic individuals detected in the study. That is really not the same thing as demonstrating that asymptomatic transmission does not occur (and it is very clear from plenty of other studies that pre-symptomatic individuals are infectious.)
How many stupid kids are going to go along with this sort of “action”, and find out only later that they’ll not be able to get a mortgage for a decade or more as a result?
While the organizers with names like Jemima Forthing-Smythe get daddy to bail them out.
Exactly, those with the trust funds will never have to worry about getting a 90% mortgage on their own account.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
Thanks to everyone so far who replied with their views on whether a 'normal' wedding/reception on 1st May is likely to be possible. As a few of you noted, the challenge with wedding planning is how far in advance we need to make decisions and sign contracts or adapt them. We might be able to push any decision on whether we scale back the wedding until mid January to see what things are looking like. Any other views are welcome; I find it useful to get outsider perspectives as sometimes I cannot see the wood for the trees when the decision is so close to me!
There is always the option of a minimal wedding now and have a party much later when the dust has settled (which also saves on the specifically wedding-related costs of the latter event, which is also now much easier to organise at shorter notice). Like the common small wedding plus bigger party, just not on the same day.
I know a pair who got married with just the celebrant and two witnesses on that principle, and went straight home afterward. They didn't want to wait, for good reasons, but equally they didn't want to put anyone at risk. Their wedding had already been scrapped in the first lockdown, and they had no idea when things would settle (and how).
Thanks Carnyx. That is an option we considered. I guess our view at the moment is that we are not sure we want to go through the two-stage process because of the additional planning and because, to put it bluntly, we just want to get married and get on with married life. I think it would either be wedding as we planned on May 1st (75 people in Church and a reception) or scale it all back to say 30, change the post-wedding activities and that will be that. It is wonderful that the news seems really positive on vaccines, but understandly no one quite knows the practical implications for mass, social events of the vaccination roll-out. There are so many moving pieces we getting contractors aligned it kind of forces you to make decisions earlier than desirable. Back in March we postponed pre-lockdown and that ended up being a wise decision; I guess this time a change in approach may look silly by May, but who knows?!
That's why the 95% figure of Pfizer isn't comparable to the 90% figure from AZ.
Is it just me, or does not testing all the members of a trial on a weekly basis seem like an obvious omission?
It really depends, the Pfizer vaccine is advertised as stopping 95% of symptomatic COVID, which is what people care about. That's what their vaccine is designed to do, stop people from getting symptoms and in 95% of cases that is what happens. If you don't care about asymptomatic spread because everyone who is liable to experience serious symptoms has been vaccinated then this is a well designed trial.
AZ have given themselves a rod for their own back by testing for asymptomatic infections, but these results also have interesting indications that the vaccine may prevent people from getting it at all with the half/full dosage method.
There was a paper yesterday from China which seemed to show that there was almost no asymptomatic transfer of the virus, unless I misunderstood. So the Pfizer jab might get rid of the virus pretty quickly.
The paper is from a post-lockdown study from earlier in the year: ...Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan....
What it shows is no demonstrated transmission from the asymptomatic individuals detected in the study. That is really not the same thing as demonstrating that asymptomatic transmission does not occur (and it is very clear from plenty of other studies that pre-symptomatic individuals are infectious.)
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
Yes, that`s what I thought. Oh dear, doesn`t bode well.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Of course not. If no deal is set to be a disaster, Labour will want to say that "we tried to stop it".
There are 364 Conservative MPs. So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
Boris will compromise on state aid, Macron will compromise on fishing and a deal will be done within a week or two.
34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at its final vote, I expect about the same will vote against Boris' deal, plus IDS, however given Boris has a majority of 80 and May had no majority at all Boris will still get it through.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
It's fake news because we're not going to have the full/full dose available. The half/full dose method will be used and it's 90% effective. AZ are registering full trial results scientifically, that's what they have to do. It's up to the media to provide proper context and the Guardian, Sky, the Mail and others all got it right this morning with the numbers and yet the BBC used hugely irresponsible wording in their headline.
This vaccine prevents 90% of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prevent 95% of symptomatic COVID. Those are the facts.
I think you do need to give a confidence interval rather than just the observed efficacy. The confidence interval is a lot wider for the 90% group than for Pfizer or Moderna.
But it's wider still for the 62% group, because the observed efficacy was so much lower, despite the larger number of participants.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
It seems to me that the press have had the temerity to accept what Oxford told them, and add the outrageous spin that 70 is not as big a number as 90. Primary end points are primary end points, guys, and you stick to protocols or what is the point of them. What has happened this morning is that the government has been on the scientists' case and told them to TONE DOWN the science and numeracy in favour of telling people what they want to hear. It is bizarre that this is being championed as a triumph of statistical literacy.
There's a distinction though, the trial was 70% effective across two modes. One had 62% efficacy and one had 90% efficacy. The vaccine that will come to market will be based on the 90% efficacy mode, therefore the vaccine has 90% efficacy. That's why the 90% figure is what should be shouted from the rooftops, more than happy for the 62% to be put out there as well, the 70% figure is actually a statistical phantom because there is no vaccine dosage that will give 70% efficacy.
You really expect British journalists to be able to understand something that nuanced?
I can think of at least one journalist who could. Mind you, she is a scientist by training and married to a very eminent Professor in the sciences.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
You are describing a third world basket case. Despite that a lot of Trump loonies who are using the public forum that is the internet to talk a load of bollocks this isn't the case. The checks and balances and rule of law function as well as anywhere. Your misinformation is seriously misleading particularly to people who believe everything they read. In other words most Trump supporters.
What are you talking about Roger? The Democrats went after Trump twice. Why wouldn't the Republicans go after Biden in 2022 if they control the House? Is this misinformation?
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
Yes, that`s what I thought. Oh dear, doesn`t bode well.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Of course not. If no deal is set to be a disaster, Labour will want to say that "we tried to stop it".
There are 364 Conservative MPs. So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
Boris will compromise on state aid, Macron will compromise on fishing and a deal will be done within a week or two.
34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at its final vote, I expect about the same will vote against Boris' deal, plus IDS, however given Boris has a majority of 80 and May had no majority at all Boris will still get it through.
And then if there are any negative consequences as a result of Brexit, the right will fight amongst themselves, blaming the lack of a "true Brexit". Perfect.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
On topic: They must not give Trump a deal. It is the easy option, but it is wrong. It is not only morally wrong it is strategically wrong for the long term.
Any would be dictator needs to know that if they fail the consequences will be harsh (and that goes for people who knowingly facilitated him/her).
Trump has come perilously close to succeeding.
If you prosecute him, all that will happen is that he will be seen as a martyr and reinforce his support.
It will also guarantee that the Republicans will seek to prosecute Biden on whatever grounds when he finishes being President, especially as Trump didn't seek to prosecute Clinton.
GOP lawyers attempting to 'prosecute' Biden should be a good laugh if the quality of their current shenanigans is anything to go by.
If they take control of the House in 2022 and keep the Senate, expect payback for the impeachment hearings.
The BBC article on it is absolutely terrible, this in particular is factually incorrect:
"Are the results disappointing? After Pfizer and Moderna both produced vaccines delivering 95% protection from Covid-19, a figure of 70% is still highly effective, but will be seen by some as relatively disappointing.
But this is still a vaccine that can save lives from Covid-19 and is more effective than a seasonal flu jab."
It's not 70%, its 62% and 90% for the two dosage variations and as we've discussed here the 90% variation includes testing for asymptomatic cases where neither of the other two trials did that.
But to be fair to the BBC, this is what Astrazeneca's own press release says, so it's not unreasonable to cite the average efficacy. It's not 'fake news' as you previously said.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
It's fake news because we're not going to have the full/full dose available. The half/full dose method will be used and it's 90% effective. AZ are registering full trial results scientifically, that's what they have to do. It's up to the media to provide proper context and the Guardian, Sky, the Mail and others all got it right this morning with the numbers and yet the BBC used hugely irresponsible wording in their headline.
This vaccine prevents 90% of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prevent 95% of symptomatic COVID. Those are the facts.
I think you do need to give a confidence interval rather than just the observed efficacy. The confidence interval is a lot wider for the 90% group than for Pfizer or Moderna.
But it's wider still for the 62% group, because the observed efficacy was so much lower, despite the larger number of participants.
It would be interesting to see what the CI is for each of those dosages trialled, but yes I agree. We don't have the full data to calculate them yet and I'm very interested to see what they are.
Well Mr Ed and contrarian are here to flood the zone with shit again, so I imagine the actually interesting discussion of vaccine efficacy will end for now. Enjoy refuting bonkers right-wing conspiracies for the rest of the day.
With Cummings out the door, it'd make sense for the UK to fold accept a great deal for Britain
Cummings was never the issue on a deal.
Boris' problem in accepting "a great deal for Britain" is that his backbenchers won't support it. Or him, for trying it on.
Glad you put that in quote marks. Backbenchers shouldn`t support it. Good, or at least adequate, deal or no deal. An extension to transition would be preferable to a bad deal.
Do you think that Johnson`s weakening on this was a reason for Cummings going? Or was it the personal stuff re; Carrie?
Cummings - and Boris's press chief - couldn't see how any deal was remotely compatible with the Tories' 2019 Manifesto, couldn't see how it could be sold other than as a massive climbdown and so were happy to walk away from the coming shit storm, would be my best guess of what went on.
Yes, that`s what I thought. Oh dear, doesn`t bode well.
So if EU won`t give us a deal that IS compatible with the Tory manifesto then what then in your opinion?
Boris tries to railroad through a deal, Starmer's Labour abstains, Brexit becomes a blue on blue fight. Boris goes from hero to absolute zero. Nobody happy with him. Can't have a "let's send a message to Brussels" election in the middle of Covid, so that route is closed off. Muddle, chaos, confusion most likely.
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
Starmer has gone on and on about getting a deal - will it be feasible for him to abstain if one if reached to avoid no deal?
Of course not. If no deal is set to be a disaster, Labour will want to say that "we tried to stop it".
There are 364 Conservative MPs. So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
It’s a big call for the Opposition parties. It the vote goes down then it *will* be no-deal, and the more opposition MPs plan to vote against, the larger will be the Tory rebel faction of no-deal advocates.
But would Labour really abstain on the most significant vote in the whole Parliament?
Comments
Its a good job Black Friday is coming up, because if they keep reporting all this bullshit, I might stick something through my telly.
Suicide *might* work - but even then....
I know a pair who got married with just the celebrant and two witnesses on that principle, and went straight home afterward. They didn't want to wait, for good reasons, but equally they didn't want to put anyone at risk. Their wedding had already been scrapped in the first lockdown, and they had no idea when things would settle (and how).
We go into 2021 with our relationship with the EU still as much of a minefield as it has been for decades.
But your essential task is to get all the facts so that others can make the decision. Being prevented from doing so undermines you as an investigator and undermines the quality of your final report. As happened here - see all the Patel supporters saying that she was not told about how her behaviour came across when it looks as if that that was simply not true (though it is a pretty feeble excuse in any event).
Maybe he did not want to make this an issue about him. So I am not criticising him because he was probably put in a very difficult position. Investigations should never be about the ego of the investigator. And he probably did not imagine - as you say - that the PM would ignore his report.
The irony is that the PM could have given her a warning which would have been enough of a compromise to get him through this. But my reading is that the PM simply does not think that any rules at all should apply to him or his government. We have the “divine right of kings” reinvented for the 21st century.
Less “Majesty’s divine right” and more the toddler”s “I want, I get”.
Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine has up to 90% efficacy, data reveals
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/23/astrazeneca-says-its-coronavirus-vaccine-has-70-per-cent-efficacy-covid-oxford-university
Hancock hails massive breakthrough after Oxford-AstraZeneca announce their vaccine is up to 90% effective and can be stored in a normal fridge
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8976835/Oxford-AstraZeneca-announce-Covid-vaccine-70-effective.html
It is also asking people to “redirect” loans from banks that finance fossil fuel projects to frontline organisations fighting for climate justice.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/23/extinction-rebellion-launch-campaign-of-financial-disobedience
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
And it might be that people think this Christmas with those people is essential to their well-being on whatever level they deem important.
What this COVID crisis has revealed is that the media have f##k all idea about science and maths. But they are great at the punch and judy of Westminster who said what about whom bollocks, so that's ok.
Well done media.
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
And massive credit to AZ and Cowley Tech for making it available on a not-for-profit basis to the developing world.
No doubt you will dismiss me as a typical effete liberal, but if it helps you to take my criticism more seriously I am currently listening to Lynerd Skynerd.
Quick question - @williamglenn shared a video of various thesps calling for electoral college voters to ignore the 2016 result. I didn't see you condemn that as a threat to democracy. Why not?
Or, do you do, as @FrancisUrquhart said, only selective outrage depending on whose side it is?
It also shows the value of our university sector. It is of massive benefit to the UK and we should be doing all we can to ensure that continues to be the case.
As it happens, they were wrong in this, because above all else America bans retrospective laws. So the rules at the time of election were the rules that had to be followed.
However, there was a certain logic (albeit flawed) to their position.
What's the reasoning behind Trump's attempts to subvert the EC?
b) who cares what a load of actors think/say? Trump and the GOP machinery are trying to overturn the outcome of a free and fair election –– why are you making false equivalence with a bunch of bloody actors??
This vaccine prevents 90% of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prevent 95% of symptomatic COVID. Those are the facts.
The best indications would be that asymptomatic people are less infectious but not non-infectious.
(And of course, will be able to given the terms AZ and OU are sharing their research on.)
As a chumocracy, the ONLY thing they have proved remotely competent at is shovelling cash to their mates.
Wouldn't want the EU to get in the way of that...
So Boris can afford to have IDS, Baker, Francois, Cash and Redwood etc vote against any trade deal he gets with the EU and still almost certainly get it through the Commons even if the Opposition all vote against it too.
In seriousness, just reading "Winners Take All" by Anand Giridharadas - spot on in his description of how those at the commanding heights have co-opted the progress agenda to suit their own needs
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1330840128349237253
1. He genuinely believes there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.
And 2.
Given he believes 1. then he has to hold out as long as possible to give a republican a chance to win again, even if he loses this time around.
Otherwise they won;t. Ever.
Pfizer and AZN weren't counting the same thing, though, so any comparison - even using their misleading headline figure - is totally invalid.
If you can't have Jeremy Vine jumping around wearing a kids party cowboy outfit - in the bowels of Christ, how *can* they report the news?
There are 364 Conservative MPs.
So if there are fewer than about 40 headbangers, BoJo can get the deal through purely on Conservative votes. That's what the government would like, but it might be pushing it. Presumably, the government wouldn't try and withdraw the whip from the rebels in this situation, despite the blatant hypocrisy?
If Labour abstain, that takes the winning post down to 226, and the government can afford 138 rebels. Not quite enough for Boris to lose a party vote of no confidence, but the realpolitik would be that he wouldn't be getting married as Prime Minister.
So, it's hard to see how Labour's numbers are relevant here. The key limiting step is what's going on in the PM's head; can he bring himself to sell the incoming deal to Parliament and the public?
And since he, more than anyone else, brought the UK to this point, including the idea that the UK could get a "cake and eat it" deal, it serves him right that he has to stand up and admit that it's not as simple as that.
They used two different regimens, and have reported separate results for each. What would have been the point of using two different regimens, if they weren't planning to analyse them separately? If it had been an _unplanned_ analysis, you could obviously describe it as "cherry picked". But if they weren't planning to analyse the results of this regimen, why would they have used it?
Excluding those medically unable to receive it obviously.
"Evidence from early in the pandemic suggests that most SARS-CoV-2 infections are not asymptomatic throughout the course of infection, and that transmission by presymptomatic cases accounts for around 40-60% of transmission and asymptomatic cases accounts for around 15% of transmission."
Which would imply that asymptomatic people are usually somewhat less infectious (as people who stay asymptomatic seem be around 20-35% of the whole), but certainly capable of infecting others.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w?s=09
...Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan....
What it shows is no demonstrated transmission from the asymptomatic individuals detected in the study.
That is really not the same thing as demonstrating that asymptomatic transmission does not occur (and it is very clear from plenty of other studies that pre-symptomatic individuals are infectious.)
Truly the mouse that roared!
But not that much different from the whole post-2016 "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.
And I don't think we have reached this point with Sidney Powell as we did with Robert Mueller. Then there were some fanatical devotees:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/muellers-report-is-done-is-there-still-a-point-in-having-a-prayer-candle-with-his-image-on-it/2019/05/10/f8aecd98-6506-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html
34 Tory rebels voted against May's deal at its final vote, I expect about the same will vote against Boris' deal, plus IDS, however given Boris has a majority of 80 and May had no majority at all Boris will still get it through.
But it's wider still for the 62% group, because the observed efficacy was so much lower, despite the larger number of participants.
I do not understand why when most are calling this fake news
Why are they surprised when the evidence is the lesson has been learned?
But would Labour really abstain on the most significant vote in the whole Parliament?