Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
Basically the methodology of the randomisation is potentially unsound. It is hard to be sure as we only have press releases to go on. The licensing bodies will want to look over the original data.
It doesn't mean that the vaccine is a dud, just not yet sufficiently proven.
Is that true? Or someone’s opinion? That sounds a very serious allegation to me.
It raised a few eyebrows with me - about the article rather than the study, though. It did have the faintest whiff of a hack job.
I was okayish with the repeated charges against using a meta-analysis to gain more and more information - when done properly, they’re more than fine for other science as they improve statistical scope (I understand many health studies are meta-analyses), but maybe there’s a specific reason they’re bad in this sense. Although AZN/Oxford have been up front with presenting that data (it’s exactly how wired are asking the question).
The placebo thing got me scratching my head. How would that affect anyone in the vaccine arms? Unless there was any reason at all to suggest either placebo was somehow efficacious against covid, it seems a totally irrelevant charge.
When they got towards implying near-malfeasance with “presumably none of the others [demonstrated efficacy],” I, and at least one acquaintance independently, started to suspect some sort of vaccine nationalism that we’ve seen before. Why immediately presume failure that’s been ineptly covered up rather than the obvious presumption that not enough events have yet happened for those particular ones to be given any statistical significance yet?
Coupled with the NY Times one saying that they were worse than Pfizer and Moderna for providing initial data in [checks notes] the exact same way as Pfizer and Moderna, it does rather raise eyebrows. Yes, I’d prefer a peer-reviewed paper first, but under the circumstances and breathless desire for some information as soon as possible, we know that’s not possible. And the only reason we know these details is because all three companies are providing all the details they have.
The only real concern I have on the AZN/Oxford one is that the more efficacious regime hasn’t yet been trialled on the over 55s (apparently; need full confirmation on that). That the smaller dose was given out deliberately for most of the trial after the initial unintentional one happened and provided encouraging data seems fine. Numbers are small, but still statistically significant.
Sorry, but it's just not right to say that they presented the data in the same way as the other companies (and the way the other companies presented the data as a headline figure without a range was bad enough).
The main problems are:
(1) The data from two studies were combined, despite those studies being in different countries, with different protocols and different recruitment criteria. A proper meta-analysis would be one thing, but that's not what's described in the press release, which talks simple of "combining", "averaging" and "pooling".
(2) It's not just that the half-dose-full-dose regimen wasn't done in over-55s (and I agree that the age range hasn't been stated and that's another thing we're having to guess about). It's also that - reportedly - after the error that led to that regimen was discovered, the recruitment criteria were changed, so even within the UK study there is a mismatch between the participants who received the different regimens. And that raises the question of how the efficacy has been calculated for the half-dose-full-dose regimen - with reference to the placebo during the earlier stage, or the pooled placebo for the whole UK study? One would hope the former, but again we're left guessing, in a way we're not for the Pfizer and Moderna studies.
That's right. It may turn out that the Oxford vaccine is just as good (or indeed better) than the others, but the only sensible thing is an independent MRHA analysis of the full data and keeping an open mind till that arrives. I don't care where the best vaccine comes from, and I'd like to be confident that the Government won't simply prefer the British one, 'cos it's ours and it's cheap. Unfortunately, I don't feel that confidence.
On the cost, if anything justifed 0.5p on income tax, getting the best vaccine for each population group really does.
As far at I can tell the British government have bought doses of pretty much every vaccine going, across a much wider range of companies than any other country.
If there's anything you should have confidence in this government doing it's in buying every working vaccine that they can as soon as they can - because they've already paid for loads in advance.
There's an almost inexhaustible supply of things to criticise this government on. Covid vaccine procurement is about the only thing where that criticism is unfair.
Of course it's the right choice. There is a £100bn black hole that is going to have to be filled in. This is a good start.
There's a £200bn hole to pay for dismantling the exisiting nuclear facilities in this country. Stop adding to that number by canning nuclear power stations (mini or otherwise) would be a good start. Instead, this Govt. (or more accurately, the civil servants in BEIS) are determined we should add to that problem.
Here’s some polling for them to get their metropolitan liberal heads around:
Don't be such a tit. The government is full of "metropolitan liberals". The Prime Minister is one of them for goodness sake.
Stop ramping your stupid culture war.
LOL. One poll shows 66/18 and the other 59/17 in favour of cutting the aid budget.
Dare I suggest that a poll asking the same question in marginal seats in the Midlands and North might be even more in favour of the cuts.
It’s something that only rich metropolitan types, operating at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, care about. The rest of the country thinks that such money is better spent domestically at a time of crisis - especially when it’s borrowed money that your generation will have to pay back.
I wonder what those who have seen their pay frozen or cut or even jobs lost think about politicians more concerned about our foreign aid being reduced than they seem to be concerned about people's wages or jobs?
The chattering classes are going off the rails again ever more stridently as the polls steadfastly refuse to reflect thier views. They really never learn.
Since the public are always right about everything I look forward to the Tories announcing plans to nationalise the utilities, train companies and Royal mail.
I remain of the view that Betfair will not now settle the POTUS market until the EC meeting on 14 Dec. SPIN have also not settled btw, although they are suspended not trading. And I note that Trump has come steaming (!) in from 30s to 15s. Bizarre - unless I've missed some key development overnight.
Here’s some polling for them to get their metropolitan liberal heads around:
Don't be such a tit. The government is full of "metropolitan liberals". The Prime Minister is one of them for goodness sake.
Stop ramping your stupid culture war.
LOL. One poll shows 66/18 and the other 59/17 in favour of cutting the aid budget.
Dare I suggest that a poll asking the same question in marginal seats in the Midlands and North might be even more in favour of the cuts.
It’s something that only rich metropolitan types, operating at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, care about. The rest of the country thinks that such money is better spent domestically at a time of crisis - especially when it’s borrowed money that your generation will have to pay back.
Rich metropolitan types like uh, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak? Get a grip man.
No one is doubting the polling that the country is in favour of the policy - of course they are. What point are you trying to make?
Other than an opportunity to get a snide culture war reference in, of course.
The Goldman Sachs Elf's finely calibrated positionalism actually makes him more detestable than Johnson's reflexive buffoonery. He's also got an S-Type which is a shit car in anybody's book but when for somebody as well heeled as him it's a crime against humanity.
The original S-Type was, of course, the weapon of choice for a generation of villains. A favourite of Bruce Reynolds as I recall.
Unimaginative automotive typecasting from the Chancellor and would-be Bond villain.
I think the Mark 2 Jag was the classic 1960s getaway car, the 1960s S type was a more ungainly larger saloon version.
The S-Type was a Mark 2 replacement with IRS instead of a live axle - basically a 4 door E-Type. But the Mark 2 kept selling so Brown's Lane kept making them. The 420 was the big lardy one.
I thought the big fat cat was the MK 10, on which the XJ6 was sort of based.
The 420 was rebranded as the Mk. 10 halfway through its life.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
OK.
People given full dose / full dose of the AZN/Oxford vaccine saw efficacy of 60-70%. People given half dose / full dose of vaccine saw efficacy close to 90%.
HOWEVER, the half dose / full dose people were all under 55 (so this may simply be the case that the vaccine is much more efficacious on the young), and the numbers are too small to be certain that this isn't simply a statistical anomoly.
It is worth noting, however, that (AFAUI) none of the people who got the AZN/Oxford vaccine became seriously ill with CV19, and it does not require sub zero storage at all. It is therefore a vaccine that could be useful for (a) the young and (b) emerging markets.
Sure that was my exact understanding, yet people like Foxy and Francis seem to be pouring water on the whole trial.
That strikes me as very serious allegation. And perhaps somewhat unfair?
The Wired article alleges that the way the results have been presented is such that they are not reporting clean data. Instead they've chosen to process it, and present it in the most flattering way possible.
It's a highly partisan article, which is based largely on supposition. The author seems to think that just because she hasn't seen the full data, the statisticians analysing the results haven't. And she seems to be arguing that lack of proof of efficacity (on data she herself argues is incomplete) is proof of inefficacity.
One to file, if not quite in the bin, at most in the 'needs corroboration' pile.
I spend almost a decade as an equity analyst. Companies that attempted to present results using esoteric (just thought up) measures, rather than - you know - actual profit and loss were usually hiding something.
There's no 'event' to show everyone who is long Uber is wrong though, just cash being shovelled in to keep the irrational fiction going for a very long time indeed...
The detail is about WeWork, which is a yet more egregious example of exactly the same thing.
The key point is that not all of these are irrational fictions. Keep shovelling in enough cash, and sometimes you'll simply drive competition in a new sector out of business. It is a gross distortion of the market, clearly, but no one yet has a solution to it.
Uber bet the house on self driving car technology, and have somewhat belatedly realised its a 90/10 problem which is awful long way from turning into a 98/2 problem. IMHO the company is now nothing but a giant ponzi scheme with investors throwing good money after bad, while the original shareholders sell out. Even before the pandemic they were losing billions of dollars a quarter.
I actually don't think it's even a 98/2 problem - 100% self driving is probably a 99.9999/0.0001 problem and even then that 0.0001 is required before you could certify the car.
What's worse is that as you automate more and more it becomes harder for drivers to keep fully alert. There is a reason why trains have both continuous beeps and dead man handles...
I remain of the view that Betfair will not now settle the POTUS market until the EC meeting on 14 Dec. SPIN have also not settled btw, although they are suspended not trading. And I note that Trump has come steaming (!) in from 30s to 15s. Bizarre - unless I've missed some key development overnight.
More lawsuits, including the one in Pennsylvania discussed earlier this morning, and another in Georgia.
On matters of economics Johnson has the kind of evidence-free optimism which is only possible when you have no understanding of reality. The UK under his leadership has already suffered the biggest economic collapse of any major economy. And now he breezily assures us that forecasts of a slow and partial recovery must be wrong. He exhibits the exact same blithe confidence that he knows better than the experts on the topic of a no deal Brexit, where he asserts - again with no supporting evidence, no successful forecasting record, no indication that he understands anything of which he speaks - that the costs of a WTO exit are vastly overstated.
Given that he 'can't manage' on an income of £150k.......
Plus his wife is earning.
Is she again? I thought she had stood down from her environmental post....
Is she eligible for Universal Credit?
Not if she's living at No 10 with Boris 'as a couple'.
The Goldman Sachs Elf's finely calibrated positionalism actually makes him more detestable than Johnson's reflexive buffoonery. He's also got an S-Type which is a shit car in anybody's book but when for somebody as well heeled as him it's a crime against humanity.
The original S-Type was, of course, the weapon of choice for a generation of villains. A favourite of Bruce Reynolds as I recall.
Unimaginative automotive typecasting from the Chancellor and would-be Bond villain.
I think the Mark 2 Jag was the classic 1960s getaway car, the 1960s S type was a more ungainly larger saloon version.
The S-Type was a Mark 2 replacement with IRS instead of a live axle - basically a 4 door E-Type. But the Mark 2 kept selling so Brown's Lane kept making them. The 420 was the big lardy one.
The S-type always looked wrong, with an out of proportion rear end. The Mark 2 was a classic though. Like the P6 V8 Rover, a real British classic saloon car.
As Cyril Crouch admitted. "We ourselves appreciated what an ugly looking car it was, and when it came out there was a ... 'Is that the best you can do?' sort of thing! People like myself had to take the stick for producing such an abomination! Perhaps I shouldn't call it that, but I think everyone was very pleased to see the end of the S and move on to the 420. It seemed an odd-looking vehicle."
They should bring forward primary legislation to abolish the target from legislation.
Budgets should be set in the budget based on need and affordability not legislation of arbitrary numbers.
Yes get rid of it completely and the aid budget. It's a waste of money. We should have legislation that only permits aid spending when the fiscal situation is a budget surplus.
I wonder what those who have seen their pay frozen or cut or even jobs lost think about politicians more concerned about our foreign aid being reduced than they seem to be concerned about people's wages or jobs?
The chattering classes are going off the rails again ever more stridently as the polls steadfastly refuse to reflect thier views. They really never learn.
The S-type always looked wrong, with an out of proportion rear end. The Mark 2 was a classic though. Like the P6 V8 Rover, a real British classic saloon car.
The P6 was a mental contraption that should never have made it out of Spen King's feverish imagination. The cranked shock/damper arrangement of the front suspension (an arrangement necessitated by a gas turbine version that never eventuated) was just ridiculous for a mass produced saloon. It also had a De Dion rear end with inboard brakes that made changing the pads a three day job.
My late father, who was otherwise a scholar and gentleman of refinement, had P6 followed by an XJ6. My mother became acculturated to laying an extra place at the breakfast table for the RAC man every morning.
That 18% is pretty close to the core of 13% metropolitan liberals. I don't think there is any other policy that has such low appeal outside of the 13%.
I wonder what those who have seen their pay frozen or cut or even jobs lost think about politicians more concerned about our foreign aid being reduced than they seem to be concerned about people's wages or jobs?
The chattering classes are going off the rails again ever more stridently as the polls steadfastly refuse to reflect thier views. They really never learn.
Since the public are always right about everything I look forward to the Tories announcing plans to nationalise the utilities, train companies and Royal mail.
In that context, it's worth noting that the public understanding of how much the UK spends on Foreign Aid overestimates the spending by a factor of ten.
Of course it's the right choice. There is a £100bn black hole that is going to have to be filled in. This is a good start.
There's a £200bn hole to pay for dismantling the exisiting nuclear facilities in this country. Stop adding to that number by canning nuclear power stations (mini or otherwise) would be a good start. Instead, this Govt. (or more accurately, the civil servants in BEIS) are determined we should add to that problem.
Something on which we agree. The outsize cost of tidal vs nuclear looks a lot less outsize when you realise those costs are all knowable and upfront, at current very low interest rates (ideal for financing by government bonds).
With nuclear, it's almost as large upfront costs PLUS large and unpredictable long tail costs.
The Goldman Sachs Elf's finely calibrated positionalism actually makes him more detestable than Johnson's reflexive buffoonery. He's also got an S-Type which is a shit car in anybody's book but when for somebody as well heeled as him it's a crime against humanity.
The original S-Type was, of course, the weapon of choice for a generation of villains. A favourite of Bruce Reynolds as I recall.
Unimaginative automotive typecasting from the Chancellor and would-be Bond villain.
I think the Mark 2 Jag was the classic 1960s getaway car, the 1960s S type was a more ungainly larger saloon version.
The S-Type was a Mark 2 replacement with IRS instead of a live axle - basically a 4 door E-Type. But the Mark 2 kept selling so Brown's Lane kept making them. The 420 was the big lardy one.
I thought the big fat cat was the MK 10, on which the XJ6 was sort of based.
The 420 was rebranded as the Mk. 10 halfway through its life.
I wonder what those who have seen their pay frozen or cut or even jobs lost think about politicians more concerned about our foreign aid being reduced than they seem to be concerned about people's wages or jobs?
The chattering classes are going off the rails again ever more stridently as the polls steadfastly refuse to reflect thier views. They really never learn.
Since the public are always right about everything I look forward to the Tories announcing plans to nationalise the utilities, train companies and Royal mail.
In that context, it's worth noting that the public understanding of how much the UK spends on Foreign Aid overestimates the spending by a factor of ten.
A statesman would seek to correct the misconception. A coward would run with it.
A sound Chancellor would cut the deficit in ways that least hurt the domestic economy.
Cutting the aid budget is very sound economics. Which is why no other developed nation wastes as much as we do. Why do we waste more of our own money than anyone else like that?
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
OK.
People given full dose / full dose of the AZN/Oxford vaccine saw efficacy of 60-70%. People given half dose / full dose of vaccine saw efficacy close to 90%.
HOWEVER, the half dose / full dose people were all under 55 (so this may simply be the case that the vaccine is much more efficacious on the young), and the numbers are too small to be certain that this isn't simply a statistical anomoly.
It is worth noting, however, that (AFAUI) none of the people who got the AZN/Oxford vaccine became seriously ill with CV19, and it does not require sub zero storage at all. It is therefore a vaccine that could be useful for (a) the young and (b) emerging markets.
Sure that was my exact understanding, yet people like Foxy and Francis seem to be pouring water on the whole trial.
That strikes me as very serious allegation. And perhaps somewhat unfair?
The Wired article alleges that the way the results have been presented is such that they are not reporting clean data. Instead they've chosen to process it, and present it in the most flattering way possible.
It's a highly partisan article, which is based largely on supposition. The author seems to think that just because she hasn't seen the full data, the statisticians analysing the results haven't. And she seems to be arguing that lack of proof of efficacity (on data she herself argues is incomplete) is proof of inefficacity.
One to file, if not quite in the bin, at most in the 'needs corroboration' pile.
I spend almost a decade as an equity analyst. Companies that attempted to present results using esoteric (just thought up) measures, rather than - you know - actual profit and loss were usually hiding something.
There's no 'event' to show everyone who is long Uber is wrong though, just cash being shovelled in to keep the irrational fiction going for a very long time indeed...
The detail is about WeWork, which is a yet more egregious example of exactly the same thing.
The key point is that not all of these are irrational fictions. Keep shovelling in enough cash, and sometimes you'll simply drive competition in a new sector out of business. It is a gross distortion of the market, clearly, but no one yet has a solution to it.
Uber bet the house on self driving car technology, and have somewhat belatedly realised its a 90/10 problem which is awful long way from turning into a 98/2 problem. IMHO the company is now nothing but a giant ponzi scheme with investors throwing good money after bad, while the original shareholders sell out. Even before the pandemic they were losing billions of dollars a quarter.
I actually don't think it's even a 98/2 problem - 100% self driving is probably a 99.9999/0.0001 problem and even then that 0.0001 is required before you could certify the car.
What's worse is that as you automate more and more it becomes harder for drivers to keep fully alert. There is a reason why trains have both continuous beeps and dead man handles...
My Audi bollocked me the other day for taking a fairly laissez faire approach to Lane Assist. I had my hands on the wheel but as I’d not imparted much pressure it felt the need to disturb the peace.
Here’s some polling for them to get their metropolitan liberal heads around:
Don't be such a tit. The government is full of "metropolitan liberals". The Prime Minister is one of them for goodness sake.
Stop ramping your stupid culture war.
LOL. One poll shows 66/18 and the other 59/17 in favour of cutting the aid budget.
Dare I suggest that a poll asking the same question in marginal seats in the Midlands and North might be even more in favour of the cuts.
It’s something that only rich metropolitan types, operating at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, care about. The rest of the country thinks that such money is better spent domestically at a time of crisis - especially when it’s borrowed money that your generation will have to pay back.
Rich metropolitan types like uh, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak? Get a grip man.
No one is doubting the polling that the country is in favour of the policy - of course they are. What point are you trying to make?
Other than an opportunity to get a snide culture war reference in, of course.
As far as I am aware the option still exists for those who wish to increase their donations to any charitable cause they wish including those which help people overseas. No doubt you and others will be increasing your DDs just as soon as you take a break from PB.
Here’s some polling for them to get their metropolitan liberal heads around:
Don't be such a tit. The government is full of "metropolitan liberals". The Prime Minister is one of them for goodness sake.
Stop ramping your stupid culture war.
If you wanted to come up with a caricature of the metropolitan elite and made up a character with Johnson's profile people would think you'd overdone it. Born in New York, grew up in Brussels, father an international bureaucrat, mother an artist, middle names Boris and dePfeffel, went to an expensive private school then Oxford where he was president of the Union, worked in the media, lived in Islington, became mayor of elitist London where his pet project was a "garden bridge", became an MP for a chichi London constituency, colourful private life with lots of affairs and an undisclosed number of offspring... And then they criticise Starmer over his parents' donkey sanctuary. It's hilarious really.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing? I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
OK.
People given full dose / full dose of the AZN/Oxford vaccine saw efficacy of 60-70%. People given half dose / full dose of vaccine saw efficacy close to 90%.
HOWEVER, the half dose / full dose people were all under 55 (so this may simply be the case that the vaccine is much more efficacious on the young), and the numbers are too small to be certain that this isn't simply a statistical anomoly.
It is worth noting, however, that (AFAUI) none of the people who got the AZN/Oxford vaccine became seriously ill with CV19, and it does not require sub zero storage at all. It is therefore a vaccine that could be useful for (a) the young and (b) emerging markets.
Sure that was my exact understanding, yet people like Foxy and Francis seem to be pouring water on the whole trial.
That strikes me as very serious allegation. And perhaps somewhat unfair?
The Wired article alleges that the way the results have been presented is such that they are not reporting clean data. Instead they've chosen to process it, and present it in the most flattering way possible.
It's a highly partisan article, which is based largely on supposition. The author seems to think that just because she hasn't seen the full data, the statisticians analysing the results haven't. And she seems to be arguing that lack of proof of efficacity (on data she herself argues is incomplete) is proof of inefficacity.
One to file, if not quite in the bin, at most in the 'needs corroboration' pile.
I spend almost a decade as an equity analyst. Companies that attempted to present results using esoteric (just thought up) measures, rather than - you know - actual profit and loss were usually hiding something.
There's no 'event' to show everyone who is long Uber is wrong though, just cash being shovelled in to keep the irrational fiction going for a very long time indeed...
The detail is about WeWork, which is a yet more egregious example of exactly the same thing.
The key point is that not all of these are irrational fictions. Keep shovelling in enough cash, and sometimes you'll simply drive competition in a new sector out of business. It is a gross distortion of the market, clearly, but no one yet has a solution to it.
Uber bet the house on self driving car technology, and have somewhat belatedly realised its a 90/10 problem which is awful long way from turning into a 98/2 problem. IMHO the company is now nothing but a giant ponzi scheme with investors throwing good money after bad, while the original shareholders sell out. Even before the pandemic they were losing billions of dollars a quarter.
I actually don't think it's even a 98/2 problem - 100% self driving is probably a 99.9999/0.0001 problem and even then that 0.0001 is required before you could certify the car.
What's worse is that as you automate more and more it becomes harder for drivers to keep fully alert. There is a reason why trains have both continuous beeps and dead man handles...
Yep. The only way I can see them working is in a new town, where they have their own dedicated roads separate from other vehicular traffic and can communicate with each other. That reduces a lot of the complexity of interaction with human drivers and the environment.
Anything less than full autonomy is useless as a concept, the whole point of having an SD car is so it can take take your kids to school and pick you up from the pub. Who is going to want one which needs a ‘driver’ anyway, just in case?
The L2 and L3 systems we have now are, as you say, positively dangerous. Humans can’t concentrate on something while doing nothing, especially when an accident can occur a split second after an anomaly. At least with trains and planes, the human usually gets a few seconds to react when the automatics quit, before the crash.
They should bring forward primary legislation to abolish the target from legislation.
Budgets should be set in the budget based on need and affordability not legislation of arbitrary numbers.
Yes get rid of it completely and the aid budget. It's a waste of money. We should have legislation that only permits aid spending when the fiscal situation is a budget surplus.
Even if there looked like being a budget surplus, Tory MPs would be lobbying for tax cuts. I'm not sure why people think a budget surplus is a good thing, as it means they are paying more tax than is necessary. There might be times when the Treasury does want to damp down demand but aside from that, there is no point taking money from widows and orphans merely to stuff under the Chancellor's mattress.
Here’s some polling for them to get their metropolitan liberal heads around:
Don't be such a tit. The government is full of "metropolitan liberals". The Prime Minister is one of them for goodness sake.
Stop ramping your stupid culture war.
LOL. One poll shows 66/18 and the other 59/17 in favour of cutting the aid budget.
Dare I suggest that a poll asking the same question in marginal seats in the Midlands and North might be even more in favour of the cuts.
It’s something that only rich metropolitan types, operating at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, care about. The rest of the country thinks that such money is better spent domestically at a time of crisis - especially when it’s borrowed money that your generation will have to pay back.
Rich metropolitan types like uh, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak? Get a grip man.
No one is doubting the polling that the country is in favour of the policy - of course they are. What point are you trying to make?
Other than an opportunity to get a snide culture war reference in, of course.
The only people pushing the Culture War narrative are the left.
My point is that everyone in politics and media is talking about this and almost nothing else this morning, while most of the country are laughing at them and supporting the government.
Here’s some polling for them to get their metropolitan liberal heads around:
Don't be such a tit. The government is full of "metropolitan liberals". The Prime Minister is one of them for goodness sake.
Stop ramping your stupid culture war.
LOL. One poll shows 66/18 and the other 59/17 in favour of cutting the aid budget.
Dare I suggest that a poll asking the same question in marginal seats in the Midlands and North might be even more in favour of the cuts.
It’s something that only rich metropolitan types, operating at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, care about. The rest of the country thinks that such money is better spent domestically at a time of crisis - especially when it’s borrowed money that your generation will have to pay back.
Rich metropolitan types like uh, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak? Get a grip man.
No one is doubting the polling that the country is in favour of the policy - of course they are. What point are you trying to make?
Other than an opportunity to get a snide culture war reference in, of course.
As far as I am aware the option still exists for those who wish to increase their donations to any charitable cause they wish including those which help people overseas. No doubt you and others will be increasing your DDs just as soon as you take a break from PB.
Um, have I ever said that I don't support the policy? I'm not that bothered by it. And I won't take lectures on out of touch "metropolitan liberalism" from someone who doesn't even live in this country, never mind the North of England.
The only comment I've made is that we should spend what aid budget we do have on vaccine distribution.
Here’s some polling for them to get their metropolitan liberal heads around:
Don't be such a tit. The government is full of "metropolitan liberals". The Prime Minister is one of them for goodness sake.
Stop ramping your stupid culture war.
LOL. One poll shows 66/18 and the other 59/17 in favour of cutting the aid budget.
Dare I suggest that a poll asking the same question in marginal seats in the Midlands and North might be even more in favour of the cuts.
It’s something that only rich metropolitan types, operating at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, care about. The rest of the country thinks that such money is better spent domestically at a time of crisis - especially when it’s borrowed money that your generation will have to pay back.
Rich metropolitan types like uh, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak? Get a grip man.
No one is doubting the polling that the country is in favour of the policy - of course they are. What point are you trying to make?
Other than an opportunity to get a snide culture war reference in, of course.
The only people pushing the Culture War narrative are the left.
My point is that everyone in politics and media is talking about this and almost nothing else this morning, while most of the country are laughing at them and supporting the government.
You push the Culture War narrative constantly. Ergo your post is total bollocks.
Shows how out of touch they are if they think the average family home can accommodate eight adults enjoying Christmas Dinner together, two metres apart.
I rather think that's just looking to take offence at what is said. More likely they are facing the inherent contradictions with the advice on distancing and the Xmas relaxation.
On matters of economics Johnson has the kind of evidence-free optimism which is only possible when you have no understanding of reality. The UK under his leadership has already suffered the biggest economic collapse of any major economy. And now he breezily assures us that forecasts of a slow and partial recovery must be wrong. He exhibits the exact same blithe confidence that he knows better than the experts on the topic of a no deal Brexit, where he asserts - again with no supporting evidence, no successful forecasting record, no indication that he understands anything of which he speaks - that the costs of a WTO exit are vastly overstated.
Given that he 'can't manage' on an income of £150k.......
Plus his wife is earning.
Is she again? I thought she had stood down from her environmental post....
Boris will still be receiving book royalties so you can help out the Prime Minister by choosing Christmas presents from his back catalogue. I've already done my bit.
Here’s some polling for them to get their metropolitan liberal heads around:
Don't be such a tit. The government is full of "metropolitan liberals". The Prime Minister is one of them for goodness sake.
Stop ramping your stupid culture war.
LOL. One poll shows 66/18 and the other 59/17 in favour of cutting the aid budget.
Dare I suggest that a poll asking the same question in marginal seats in the Midlands and North might be even more in favour of the cuts.
It’s something that only rich metropolitan types, operating at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, care about. The rest of the country thinks that such money is better spent domestically at a time of crisis - especially when it’s borrowed money that your generation will have to pay back.
Rich metropolitan types like uh, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak? Get a grip man.
No one is doubting the polling that the country is in favour of the policy - of course they are. What point are you trying to make?
Other than an opportunity to get a snide culture war reference in, of course.
The only people pushing the Culture War narrative are the left.
My point is that everyone in politics and media is talking about this and almost nothing else this morning, while most of the country are laughing at them and supporting the government.
You push the Culture War narrative constantly. Ergo your post is total bollocks.
I believe in freedom of speech, if that’s what you mean.
The post is total truth, cutting state aid is the single most popular policy this government is enacting. Too many in the media never speak to people who don’t live in Islington.
I wonder what those who have seen their pay frozen or cut or even jobs lost think about politicians more concerned about our foreign aid being reduced than they seem to be concerned about people's wages or jobs?
The chattering classes are going off the rails again ever more stridently as the polls steadfastly refuse to reflect thier views. They really never learn.
Since the public are always right about everything I look forward to the Tories announcing plans to nationalise the utilities, train companies and Royal mail.
In that context, it's worth noting that the public understanding of how much the UK spends on Foreign Aid overestimates the spending by a factor of ten.
A statesman would seek to correct the misconception. A coward would run with it.
A sound Chancellor would cut the deficit in ways that least hurt the domestic economy.
Cutting the aid budget is very sound economics. Which is why no other developed nation wastes as much as we do. Why do we waste more of our own money than anyone else like that?
You mean apart from Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Denmark.
And now back to the question, which is a general point.
Imagine a policy. Any policy. Suppose the public has, for whatever reason, a big misconception about the costs and benefits of that policy. Not that they're evil, or stupid, just that they've picked up an incorrect idea about the facts. It happens to us all, we're all busy people and don't have time to check everything.
What should a wise government seek to do?
Act on public pressure, even if it's based on a really incorrect foundation? Or seek to bring the public mind closer to reality?
I wonder what those who have seen their pay frozen or cut or even jobs lost think about politicians more concerned about our foreign aid being reduced than they seem to be concerned about people's wages or jobs?
The chattering classes are going off the rails again ever more stridently as the polls steadfastly refuse to reflect thier views. They really never learn.
Since the public are always right about everything I look forward to the Tories announcing plans to nationalise the utilities, train companies and Royal mail.
In that context, it's worth noting that the public understanding of how much the UK spends on Foreign Aid overestimates the spending by a factor of ten.
A statesman would seek to correct the misconception. A coward would run with it.
A sound Chancellor would cut the deficit in ways that least hurt the domestic economy.
Cutting the aid budget is very sound economics. Which is why no other developed nation wastes as much as we do. Why do we waste more of our own money than anyone else like that?
I wonder what those who have seen their pay frozen or cut or even jobs lost think about politicians more concerned about our foreign aid being reduced than they seem to be concerned about people's wages or jobs?
The chattering classes are going off the rails again ever more stridently as the polls steadfastly refuse to reflect thier views. They really never learn.
Since the public are always right about everything I look forward to the Tories announcing plans to nationalise the utilities, train companies and Royal mail.
In that context, it's worth noting that the public understanding of how much the UK spends on Foreign Aid overestimates the spending by a factor of ten.
A statesman would seek to correct the misconception. A coward would run with it.
It's a fair point. I'm in favour of it in principle but there are reasoned arguments to reduce or even eliminate, though the latter in particular many would object to. But the arguments should be on the reality not coast on misconceptions. But that is how many changes get through eg on legal aid apparently.
I wonder what those who have seen their pay frozen or cut or even jobs lost think about politicians more concerned about our foreign aid being reduced than they seem to be concerned about people's wages or jobs?
The chattering classes are going off the rails again ever more stridently as the polls steadfastly refuse to reflect thier views. They really never learn.
Since the public are always right about everything I look forward to the Tories announcing plans to nationalise the utilities, train companies and Royal mail.
In that context, it's worth noting that the public understanding of how much the UK spends on Foreign Aid overestimates the spending by a factor of ten.
A statesman would seek to correct the misconception. A coward would run with it.
A sound Chancellor would cut the deficit in ways that least hurt the domestic economy.
Cutting the aid budget is very sound economics. Which is why no other developed nation wastes as much as we do. Why do we waste more of our own money than anyone else like that?
Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark.
Very few others indeed. Not in itself a reason to do the same and cut, but its worth noting.
I remain of the view that Betfair will not now settle the POTUS market until the EC meeting on 14 Dec. SPIN have also not settled btw, although they are suspended not trading. And I note that Trump has come steaming (!) in from 30s to 15s. Bizarre - unless I've missed some key development overnight.
More lawsuits, including the one in Pennsylvania discussed earlier this morning, and another in Georgia.
S. Index ended betting what seems like weeks ago. I won despite two hurried 'cut your losses' moments. Last time I looked, I couldn't withdraw it and Michigan was still 'suspended'. But I only bet small amounts and they let me bet on credit so I'm not complaining much.
People who lose because BF has breached its own terms (breach of contract) should file county court claims ... and report them to Justice for Punters.
I wonder what those who have seen their pay frozen or cut or even jobs lost think about politicians more concerned about our foreign aid being reduced than they seem to be concerned about people's wages or jobs?
The chattering classes are going off the rails again ever more stridently as the polls steadfastly refuse to reflect thier views. They really never learn.
Since the public are always right about everything I look forward to the Tories announcing plans to nationalise the utilities, train companies and Royal mail.
In that context, it's worth noting that the public understanding of how much the UK spends on Foreign Aid overestimates the spending by a factor of ten.
A statesman would seek to correct the misconception. A coward would run with it.
A sound Chancellor would cut the deficit in ways that least hurt the domestic economy.
Cutting the aid budget is very sound economics. Which is why no other developed nation wastes as much as we do. Why do we waste more of our own money than anyone else like that?
You mean apart from Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Denmark.
And now back to the question, which is a general point.
Imagine a policy. Any policy. Suppose the public has, for whatever reason, a big misconception about the costs and benefits of that policy. Not that they're evil, or stupid, just that they've picked up an incorrect idea about the facts. It happens to us all, we're all busy people and don't have time to check everything.
What should a wise government seek to do?
Act on public pressure, even if it's based on a really incorrect foundation? Or seek to bring the public mind closer to reality?
This is the fundamental dilemma behind Churchill's famous remark that one's belief in Democracy was unlikely to survive five minutes discussion with a constituent. The reality is that most of us can't be arsed to research and figure the true nature and implications of public policy, so we tend to leave it to others, mostly the politicos, whilst reserving the right to grumble about their lack of appreciation of what the public thinks.
Much of the time Governments ignore what the public think, not out of malice or mischief but because they understand the score in a way most of us don't. This can work well, but is self-evidently full of dangers as we know only too well.
Comments
Not reported elsewhere yet; nor am I sure where this leaves Cadwalladr (apart from potentially broke, Katie Hopkins style) or if this is spun.
I haven't followed this story obsessively.
The place to watch is probably the Press Gazette.
If there's anything you should have confidence in this government doing it's in buying every working vaccine that they can as soon as they can - because they've already paid for loads in advance.
There's an almost inexhaustible supply of things to criticise this government on. Covid vaccine procurement is about the only thing where that criticism is unfair.
Dare I suggest that a poll asking the same question in marginal seats in the Midlands and North might be even more in favour of the cuts.
It’s something that only rich metropolitan types, operating at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, care about. The rest of the country thinks that such money is better spent domestically at a time of crisis - especially when it’s borrowed money that your generation will have to pay back.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view
No one is doubting the polling that the country is in favour of the policy - of course they are. What point are you trying to make?
Other than an opportunity to get a snide culture war reference in, of course.
What's worse is that as you automate more and more it becomes harder for drivers to keep fully alert. There is a reason why trains have both continuous beeps and dead man handles...
https://twitter.com/MarcusRashford/status/1331646500011716610?s=20
HMG is going to find it very hard to take the £20pw UC uplift away in April IMO.
Budgets should be set in the budget based on need and affordability not legislation of arbitrary numbers.
"We ourselves appreciated what an ugly looking car it was, and when it came out there was a ... 'Is that the best you can do?' sort of thing! People like myself had to take the stick for producing such an abomination! Perhaps I shouldn't call it that, but I think everyone was very pleased to see the end of the S and move on to the 420. It seemed an odd-looking vehicle."
My late father, who was otherwise a scholar and gentleman of refinement, had P6 followed by an XJ6. My mother became acculturated to laying an extra place at the breakfast table for the RAC man every morning.
Keynes spoke nearly a century ago about nominal rigidity of wages which is commonly paraphrased as them being "sticky downwards". Same concept.
I suppose it could be bookmaker's money, who value it more highly.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/gb2018/GB8.pdf
A statesman would seek to correct the misconception. A coward would run with it.
The outsize cost of tidal vs nuclear looks a lot less outsize when you realise those costs are all knowable and upfront, at current very low interest rates (ideal for financing by government bonds).
With nuclear, it's almost as large upfront costs PLUS large and unpredictable long tail costs.
Secondly, they'll have Rashford out-campaigning them on the issue.
Thirdly, they will have the economic fall-out of less money being spent (less real demand) and more bad debts, defaults etc. to deal with.
Cutting the aid budget is very sound economics. Which is why no other developed nation wastes as much as we do. Why do we waste more of our own money than anyone else like that?
Anything less than full autonomy is useless as a concept, the whole point of having an SD car is so it can take take your kids to school and pick you up from the pub. Who is going to want one which needs a ‘driver’ anyway, just in case?
The L2 and L3 systems we have now are, as you say, positively dangerous. Humans can’t concentrate on something while doing nothing, especially when an accident can occur a split second after an anomaly. At least with trains and planes, the human usually gets a few seconds to react when the automatics quit, before the crash.
My point is that everyone in politics and media is talking about this and almost nothing else this morning, while most of the country are laughing at them and supporting the government.
The only comment I've made is that we should spend what aid budget we do have on vaccine distribution.
Since we do not have inflation right now they can't free fall by that either.
The post is total truth, cutting state aid is the single most popular policy this government is enacting. Too many in the media never speak to people who don’t live in Islington.
And now back to the question, which is a general point.
Imagine a policy. Any policy.
Suppose the public has, for whatever reason, a big misconception about the costs and benefits of that policy.
Not that they're evil, or stupid, just that they've picked up an incorrect idea about the facts. It happens to us all, we're all busy people and don't have time to check everything.
What should a wise government seek to do?
Act on public pressure, even if it's based on a really incorrect foundation?
Or seek to bring the public mind closer to reality?
People who lose because BF has breached its own terms (breach of contract) should file county court claims ... and report them to Justice for Punters.
Much of the time Governments ignore what the public think, not out of malice or mischief but because they understand the score in a way most of us don't. This can work well, but is self-evidently full of dangers as we know only too well.