Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
I rejoined the LibDems to back Davey.
On the latest Electoral Calculus poll averages projection the 2024 general election would produce a hung parliament and a result of Tories 307, Labour 255, SNP 58 , DUP 8 and LDs 7. https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
So Ed Davey would hold the balance of power as neither the Tories + DUP or Labour + SNP would have a majority and determine whether Boris or Starmer became PM, this time unlike 2010 I would expect the LDs to back Labour, at least on confidence and supply
Well, at least until the Corbynistas set out THEIR demands for confidence and supply....
Bottom line: Biden didn't do much better on average than Dem candidates for House and Senate.
Reading this, it's no surprise that most voters stick with the same party for both President and the Senate/House. But there do appear to be flaws in the analysis.
Firstly, it's based on a subset of states only, since not all of them had concurrent elections.
Secondly, it's using the term "outperformance" to analyse the absolute difference in vote share between Presidential and Senate/House results. More meaningful would be the difference in SWING between last time and this time? Maybe (as we see in the UK) there's always a difference between how some people vote at different levels - this is particularly likely where there's a popular incumbent who draws support across the aisle, for example.
What I'd be interested to know is whether more people swung DEM at the 2020 Presidential compared to 2016, now having seen Trump's performance in office and during the campaign? This the analysis simply doesn't tell us - because it can't, the electoral cycles being out of sync.
Nevertheless the data in this article does suggest there was overperformance by Biden - look at the graph for the House Democrats, and by eye I'd put the average outperformance at 1% of the vote. For the Senate it's less clear, but there's a batch of Trump outperformances that are at fractions of a % almost on the line; there's probably a net 0.5% outperformance for Biden. And he is fortunate that he outperformed in some of the key states such as Michigan, Georgia, NC (delivering a near miss), Ohio, Minnesota. Trump chalked up his apparent larger overperformances mostly where it wasn't much use - Hawaii, California, Montana, New York, WV, RI, Alabama.
That extra 0.5% to 1.0% of the total vote, focused where it mattered, will have been important.
Yes, not all states had senate elections, but everywhere voted for the House - so it's probably OK to compare national House vote share with presidential vote share - although not all House seats had both D and R candidates to vote for so it's still not entirely comparable (8 races with no Dem and 19 with no Republican). Biden's lead in the national vote is currently 4.4% Democrat's House national vote lead is currently 2.9%
So Biden is outperforming House Dems by 1.5% in terms of vote share lead. In 2016 Clinton outperformed House Dems by 3.2% in terms of vote share lead.
As for the senate: Georgia seems to be the only state where Biden's slightly better performance actually gained him any EC votes. OTOH Collins' big overperformance vs Trump in Maine cost the Democrats a critical Senate seat.
That comparison with Clinton's performance suggests that the article's authors may indeed have a point, tbf.
The other factor missing is the strong tendency of US voters to give their presidents second terms - a factor we simply don't have in the UK, where seeing a government in office normally repels a chunk of those who first elected it. I think we look at Trump through our own lens and wonder why someone so abysmal wasn't more easily ejected from office, when in US terms being denied re-election is actually a big deal.
I wouldn't describe it as a "strong" tendency given that three of the last seven Presidents have tried and failed to win reelection (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
Bush I was arguably a third Republican term already, Bush II would have been a fourth not a second.
If you look by party rather than individual the Americans absolutely do give second terms normally. There have been a dozen times since the start of the 20th century that a first-term party has had the President seeking re-election. Of those dozen times 10 were re-elected, the only exceptions being Carter and Trump.
Indeed and after Carter lost in 1980 it took the Democrats 12 years to regain the White House again, which is not a good omen for Republicans at least in terms of future presidential elections.
I wouldn't suggest a dozen years is likely but 8+ is quite probable.
Its why I'd make Harris odds-on favourite to be next President. I'd give the Democrats a 70%+ chance of holding the Oval Office at first time of asking, and give Harris a 75%+ chance of being the nominee next time which combined makes Harris 52.5%+ chance to be next POTUS.
The experts are obsessed with never giving the impression that things might be getting better, presumably because they don't trust ordinary people to hear that things are getting better and "behave irresponsibly" as they would see it.
One thing I've noted is that everyone in the US seems to get the flu jab, or at least is offered it. Whereas here if you're healthy and under 50, no chance.
Betfair should settle on the 8th. This is safe harbour date beyond which challenges to certification can't be entertained by the courts
That's a very good suggestion - you ought to propose it to them, as it gives them a sensible way out of this mess of their own making.
Their statement says they are getting advice from leading US lawyers on the issue. Those lawyers probably have a better understanding of the electoral calendar and potential challenges than even well informed opinion on here.
You raise an intriguing point. Why US lawyers? I should have thought disputes would be settled under English law.
On-line gambling is illegal in most US States. Not sure how many US lawyers would have the necessary experience.
The experts are obsessed with never giving the impression that things might be getting better, presumably because they don't trust ordinary people to hear that things are getting better and "behave irresponsibly" as they would see it.
I'd suggest they have reason to be cautious about people behaving responsibly, particularly given how many people dont accept anything and resist everything under the pretence of simply being confused or asking questions (even when answers are provided), and many whod argue to trust people to behave responsibly ideologically wanted no restrictions at any time.
Bottom line: Biden didn't do much better on average than Dem candidates for House and Senate.
Reading this, it's no surprise that most voters stick with the same party for both President and the Senate/House. But there do appear to be flaws in the analysis.
Firstly, it's based on a subset of states only, since not all of them had concurrent elections.
Secondly, it's using the term "outperformance" to analyse the absolute difference in vote share between Presidential and Senate/House results. More meaningful would be the difference in SWING between last time and this time? Maybe (as we see in the UK) there's always a difference between how some people vote at different levels - this is particularly likely where there's a popular incumbent who draws support across the aisle, for example.
What I'd be interested to know is whether more people swung DEM at the 2020 Presidential compared to 2016, now having seen Trump's performance in office and during the campaign? This the analysis simply doesn't tell us - because it can't, the electoral cycles being out of sync.
Nevertheless the data in this article does suggest there was overperformance by Biden - look at the graph for the House Democrats, and by eye I'd put the average outperformance at 1% of the vote. For the Senate it's less clear, but there's a batch of Trump outperformances that are at fractions of a % almost on the line; there's probably a net 0.5% outperformance for Biden. And he is fortunate that he outperformed in some of the key states such as Michigan, Georgia, NC (delivering a near miss), Ohio, Minnesota. Trump chalked up his apparent larger overperformances mostly where it wasn't much use - Hawaii, California, Montana, New York, WV, RI, Alabama.
That extra 0.5% to 1.0% of the total vote, focused where it mattered, will have been important.
Yes, not all states had senate elections, but everywhere voted for the House - so it's probably OK to compare national House vote share with presidential vote share - although not all House seats had both D and R candidates to vote for so it's still not entirely comparable (8 races with no Dem and 19 with no Republican). Biden's lead in the national vote is currently 4.4% Democrat's House national vote lead is currently 2.9%
So Biden is outperforming House Dems by 1.5% in terms of vote share lead. In 2016 Clinton outperformed House Dems by 3.2% in terms of vote share lead.
As for the senate: Georgia seems to be the only state where Biden's slightly better performance actually gained him any EC votes. OTOH Collins' big overperformance vs Trump in Maine cost the Democrats a critical Senate seat.
That comparison with Clinton's performance suggests that the article's authors may indeed have a point, tbf.
The other factor missing is the strong tendency of US voters to give their presidents second terms - a factor we simply don't have in the UK, where seeing a government in office normally repels a chunk of those who first elected it. I think we look at Trump through our own lens and wonder why someone so abysmal wasn't more easily ejected from office, when in US terms being denied re-election is actually a big deal.
I wouldn't describe it as a "strong" tendency given that three of the last seven Presidents have tried and failed to win reelection (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
Bush I was arguably a third Republican term already, Bush II would have been a fourth not a second.
If you look by party rather than individual the Americans absolutely do give second terms normally. There have been a dozen times since the start of the 20th century that a first-term party has had the President seeking re-election. Of those dozen times 10 were re-elected, the only exceptions being Carter and Trump.
Indeed and after Carter lost in 1980 it took the Democrats 12 years to regain the White House again, which is not a good omen for Republicans at least in terms of future presidential elections.
I wouldn't suggest a dozen years is likely but 8+ is quite probable.
Its why I'd make Harris odds-on favourite to be next President. I'd give the Democrats a 70%+ chance of holding the Oval Office at first time of asking, and give Harris a 75%+ chance of being the nominee next time which combined makes Harris 52.5%+ chance to be next POTUS.
I'd lay Harris at 1.9, preferably on Betdaq where they know how to operate an exchange.
One thing I've noted is that everyone in the US seems to get the flu jab, or at least is offered it. Whereas here if you're healthy and under 50, no chance.
1) In the US, you pay for healthcare. Your doctor's bank account needs topping up.
2) In the UK, we really know how to penny pinch because the NHS is always skint. Apparently.
The experts are obsessed with never giving the impression that things might be getting better, presumably because they don't trust ordinary people to hear that things are getting better and "behave irresponsibly" as they would see it.
I don't think, to be fair, that it's 'ordinary people' who are not trusted, rather some politicians, who are anxious to claim 'success' and indications of potential victory on every possible occasion!
Betfair should settle on the 8th. This is safe harbour date beyond which challenges to certification can't be entertained by the courts
That's a very good suggestion - you ought to propose it to them, as it gives them a sensible way out of this mess of their own making.
Their statement says they are getting advice from leading US lawyers on the issue. Those lawyers probably have a better understanding of the electoral calendar and potential challenges than even well informed opinion on here.
You raise an intriguing point. Why US lawyers? I should have thought disputes would be settled under English law.
On-line gambling is illegal in most US States. Not sure how many US lawyers would have the necessary experience.
If Betfair wanted to they could have framed the market as "Who is heading up the steps on the 20th January to be sworn in by John Roberts (Or whoever might be chief justice at the time)". They haven't, the 'next president' is ostensibly NOT on who will be the next president. It's on next projected president which is something completely different. They're lucky it's not closer and Biden *touch wood* has stayed healthy through November so far.
Bottom line: Biden didn't do much better on average than Dem candidates for House and Senate.
Reading this, it's no surprise that most voters stick with the same party for both President and the Senate/House. But there do appear to be flaws in the analysis.
Firstly, it's based on a subset of states only, since not all of them had concurrent elections.
Secondly, it's using the term "outperformance" to analyse the absolute difference in vote share between Presidential and Senate/House results. More meaningful would be the difference in SWING between last time and this time? Maybe (as we see in the UK) there's always a difference between how some people vote at different levels - this is particularly likely where there's a popular incumbent who draws support across the aisle, for example.
What I'd be interested to know is whether more people swung DEM at the 2020 Presidential compared to 2016, now having seen Trump's performance in office and during the campaign? This the analysis simply doesn't tell us - because it can't, the electoral cycles being out of sync.
Nevertheless the data in this article does suggest there was overperformance by Biden - look at the graph for the House Democrats, and by eye I'd put the average outperformance at 1% of the vote. For the Senate it's less clear, but there's a batch of Trump outperformances that are at fractions of a % almost on the line; there's probably a net 0.5% outperformance for Biden. And he is fortunate that he outperformed in some of the key states such as Michigan, Georgia, NC (delivering a near miss), Ohio, Minnesota. Trump chalked up his apparent larger overperformances mostly where it wasn't much use - Hawaii, California, Montana, New York, WV, RI, Alabama.
That extra 0.5% to 1.0% of the total vote, focused where it mattered, will have been important.
Yes, not all states had senate elections, but everywhere voted for the House - so it's probably OK to compare national House vote share with presidential vote share - although not all House seats had both D and R candidates to vote for so it's still not entirely comparable (8 races with no Dem and 19 with no Republican). Biden's lead in the national vote is currently 4.4% Democrat's House national vote lead is currently 2.9%
So Biden is outperforming House Dems by 1.5% in terms of vote share lead. In 2016 Clinton outperformed House Dems by 3.2% in terms of vote share lead.
As for the senate: Georgia seems to be the only state where Biden's slightly better performance actually gained him any EC votes. OTOH Collins' big overperformance vs Trump in Maine cost the Democrats a critical Senate seat.
That comparison with Clinton's performance suggests that the article's authors may indeed have a point, tbf.
The other factor missing is the strong tendency of US voters to give their presidents second terms - a factor we simply don't have in the UK, where seeing a government in office normally repels a chunk of those who first elected it. I think we look at Trump through our own lens and wonder why someone so abysmal wasn't more easily ejected from office, when in US terms being denied re-election is actually a big deal.
I wouldn't describe it as a "strong" tendency given that three of the last seven Presidents have tried and failed to win reelection (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
Bush I was arguably a third Republican term already, Bush II would have been a fourth not a second.
If you look by party rather than individual the Americans absolutely do give second terms normally. There have been a dozen times since the start of the 20th century that a first-term party has had the President seeking re-election. Of those dozen times 10 were re-elected, the only exceptions being Carter and Trump.
Indeed and after Carter lost in 1980 it took the Democrats 12 years to regain the White House again, which is not a good omen for Republicans at least in terms of future presidential elections.
I wouldn't suggest a dozen years is likely but 8+ is quite probable.
Its why I'd make Harris odds-on favourite to be next President. I'd give the Democrats a 70%+ chance of holding the Oval Office at first time of asking, and give Harris a 75%+ chance of being the nominee next time which combined makes Harris 52.5%+ chance to be next POTUS.
If Biden does not run again then Harris as VP would be favourite for the nomination and the general election (in the unlikely event Biden does run again then he would be favourite), however I would expect Buttigieg to challenge her, especially if she is not polling that well against the GOP contenders and maybe 1 or 2 others eg if Joe Kennedy III runs for Massachussetts governor in 2022 and wins he might also run and AOC would run too as the candidate of the left
One thing I've noted is that everyone in the US seems to get the flu jab, or at least is offered it. Whereas here if you're healthy and under 50, no chance.
Really? I've had it last 3 years sourced via local Gov employer. I figured its harder for others in the age bracket, but not impossible.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
I rejoined the LibDems to back Davey.
On the latest Electoral Calculus poll averages projection the 2024 general election would produce a hung parliament and a result of Tories 307, Labour 255, SNP 58 , DUP 8 and LDs 7. https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
So Ed Davey would hold the balance of power as neither the Tories + DUP or Labour + SNP would have a majority and determine whether Boris or Starmer became PM, this time unlike 2010 I would expect the LDs to back Labour, at least on confidence and supply
Well, at least until the Corbynistas set out THEIR demands for confidence and supply....
The ERG might do the same for the Tories so they would cancel each other out
Interesting commentary (from someone who has rather more informed knowledge than either politicians or journalists).
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-speedy-coronavirus-vaccine-approval-sparks-hope-and-questions/ ...“the world is looking at the U.K.,” said microbiologist Ralf Rene Reinert, Regional Lead Medical and Scientific Affairs, at Pfizer Vaccines, inferring that since the U.K. has successfully used an EU loophole to approve this vaccine during an emergency, other countries might be thinking of doing the same. “I just got an email [about this],” he began to say, but stopped short of revealing which country it came from.
“It’s a risk-benefit decision. There are many deaths a day,” he said, noting Germany, where he lives, on Wednesday recorded its highest number of daily deaths...
One thing I've noted is that everyone in the US seems to get the flu jab, or at least is offered it. Whereas here if you're healthy and under 50, no chance.
It's not surprising when a family doctor in the US gets a nice bit of profit for giving you a flu vaccine. Here that incentive is removed so it's done based on need.
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
I wouldn't think that the MRHA would be susceptible to political pressure, but it does seem that the European Agency has asked for more detail. Are they gilding the lily, or just being more thorough? Time will tell.
Or did the MRHA simply take the line that with several thousand dying every week plus a significant number of long term impaired health, is even a couple of weeks gathering and analysing further data too much cost?
A risk, but a risk worth taking, is a reasonable position. Vaccine complications are rare, but on the other hand quite damaging to confidence. Not an easy decision.
You know far more about this than my but FWIW my perception is that the key to this early decision has been the real time sharing of data as it came in by Pfizer and others so that a lot of the work had been done by the time that the government asked them to make the formal decision. I don't know if the EMA did the same but if they started later they will finish later, that is inevitable.
With over 10k a day deaths being recorded worldwide I do agree that cautious risk taking is appropriate but no doubt they will be watching the outcome of this first wave of vaccinations very carefully.
I would hope that the MRHA wouldn't take any risks that could be avoided by taking an extra 2 weeks. The damage done to confidence in vaccines if approval has to be withdrawn or modified would have terrible long-term consequences. Whereas would the 2 weeks really be lost - wouldn't they be used anyway to increase supplies and prepare logistics?
So I'm not sure why the EMA is taking longer, someone suggested losing the MRHA is part of the reason - in which case those of us in the rest of Europe would have yet another thing to blame Brexit for!
There does seem to be a lot of circumstantial evidence that the EMA has been weakened by its move from London. This is no doubt a temporary thing and the timing is unfortunate. I am yet to be convinced that taking longer is either "safer" or "better". It may just mean that the same work had been done less quickly.
I think both sides are 'right' on this.
Yes, technically the UK could have used emergency national powers to temporarily approve the vaccine had it still been a member of the EU. In that sense Brexit hasn't given it new powers to do so, especially since all the current EU regulations will apply until at least 1st January 2021.
However, as we've seen from the somewhat emotional and defensive reaction across the channel in the last 24 hours, to have done so whilst we were still an EU member would have been seen as extremely bad form. Therefore, just as "in theory" we'd have had powers to suspend aspects of free movement in certain emergency situations we would not have done here either for political reasons.
For the EU and its institutions the EU is all about 'solidarity' so for the UK to "get ahead" of all the members by nationally approving first would have been seen as about as polite as lopping the nose off the end of the brie and eating it all by ourselves. They'd have been horrified.
So, yes, we could have done this whilst being a member of the EU - but we never would have.
The Times also mention that the MHRA has seen a large influx of expertise from the relocation of the EMA and UK based scientific regulators (many of them EU citizens) not wanting to relocate with it to Amsterdam. They say this has been a factor on both sides, giving the MHRA a huge amount of capacity at exactly the right time and leaving the EMA short staffed during a pandemic.
I'd speculate that if the MHRA hadn't split off from the EMA until the end of next year the whole EU would have benefited from the rapid approval. Everyone talking about it being rushed is chatting shit, even Fauci unless he's suggesting that Pfizer submitted it for approval with any chance of it being rejected.
If I was a European politician I'd be pointing out that Moderna hasn't sent it's vaccine data to the MHRA for approval yet while the EMA has already got it and this could be because of the relative size of the markets. It's bullshit but would be the perfect kind of remainer Twitter fodder that we see posted on here by the usual suspects.
so it's disruption caused by Brexit that has slowed vaccine approval in Europe? thanks for clearing that up. another great "upside" of Brexit I suppose.
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
I wouldn't think that the MRHA would be susceptible to political pressure, but it does seem that the European Agency has asked for more detail. Are they gilding the lily, or just being more thorough? Time will tell.
Or did the MRHA simply take the line that with several thousand dying every week plus a significant number of long term impaired health, is even a couple of weeks gathering and analysing further data too much cost?
A risk, but a risk worth taking, is a reasonable position. Vaccine complications are rare, but on the other hand quite damaging to confidence. Not an easy decision.
You know far more about this than my but FWIW my perception is that the key to this early decision has been the real time sharing of data as it came in by Pfizer and others so that a lot of the work had been done by the time that the government asked them to make the formal decision. I don't know if the EMA did the same but if they started later they will finish later, that is inevitable.
With over 10k a day deaths being recorded worldwide I do agree that cautious risk taking is appropriate but no doubt they will be watching the outcome of this first wave of vaccinations very carefully.
I would hope that the MRHA wouldn't take any risks that could be avoided by taking an extra 2 weeks. The damage done to confidence in vaccines if approval has to be withdrawn or modified would have terrible long-term consequences. Whereas would the 2 weeks really be lost - wouldn't they be used anyway to increase supplies and prepare logistics?
So I'm not sure why the EMA is taking longer, someone suggested losing the MRHA is part of the reason - in which case those of us in the rest of Europe would have yet another thing to blame Brexit for!
There does seem to be a lot of circumstantial evidence that the EMA has been weakened by its move from London. This is no doubt a temporary thing and the timing is unfortunate. I am yet to be convinced that taking longer is either "safer" or "better". It may just mean that the same work had been done less quickly.
I think both sides are 'right' on this.
Yes, technically the UK could have used emergency national powers to temporarily approve the vaccine had it still been a member of the EU. In that sense Brexit hasn't given it new powers to do so, especially since all the current EU regulations will apply until at least 1st January 2021.
However, as we've seen from the somewhat emotional and defensive reaction across the channel in the last 24 hours, to have done so whilst we were still an EU member would have been seen as extremely bad form. Therefore, just as "in theory" we'd have had powers to suspend aspects of free movement in certain emergency situations we would not have done here either for political reasons.
For the EU and its institutions the EU is all about 'solidarity' so for the UK to "get ahead" of all the members by nationally approving first would have been seen as about as polite as lopping the nose off the end of the brie and eating it all by ourselves. They'd have been horrified.
So, yes, we could have done this whilst being a member of the EU - but we never would have.
The Times also mention that the MHRA has seen a large influx of expertise from the relocation of the EMA and UK based scientific regulators (many of them EU citizens) not wanting to relocate with it to Amsterdam. They say this has been a factor on both sides, giving the MHRA a huge amount of capacity at exactly the right time and leaving the EMA short staffed during a pandemic.
I'd speculate that if the MHRA hadn't split off from the EMA until the end of next year the whole EU would have benefited from the rapid approval. Everyone talking about it being rushed is chatting shit, even Fauci unless he's suggesting that Pfizer submitted it for approval with any chance of it being rejected.
If I was a European politician I'd be pointing out that Moderna hasn't sent it's vaccine data to the MHRA for approval yet while the EMA has already got it and this could be because of the relative size of the markets. It's bullshit but would be the perfect kind of remainer Twitter fodder that we see posted on here by the usual suspects.
It was quite clear. We were able to move faster because we utilised the system of the "rolling review" which was open to other Member States.
The EMA does not assess any products itself, it outsources that to its Member States' regulatory authorities, and, in particular for vaccines, the MHRA. The MHRA is the biggest national regulatory agency in Europe. Since the EMA's move to Amsterdam, the MHRA doesn't perform this work for the EMA any more and hence performed the process including gaining the Emergency Use Authorisation (in this instance) for the UK only.
Any Member State could have applied for an EUA but none did. Nor did they make use of the rolling review which the MHRA did and which meant that at the end of the process they, the MHRA, could authorise the vaccine quickly. Other EU Member States are only now beginning the review process.
Is that "because of Brexit"? Not 100% sure it was. No Brexit = whole of Europe would have had early authorisation of the vaccine as they would have used the MHRA for EMA authorisation.
Incidentally, the article raises a question about live animal exports. Presumably these will be allowed from GB to NI, albeit with extra paperwork. And from NI to the Republic. And from the Republic to anywhere else in the EU. So the UK ban seems to have a massive hole in it, which could make things worse. What a mind-boggling shambles this all is.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
There's a chance Biden (Or Harris) could get precisely 270 ECVs next time.
Biden increased Clinton's lead over Trump by 2.2%. The key states PA, NV, WI all increased by less than this which is a relative rightward shift to the nation.
MI, NE-2, GA, AZ however all swung left by > 3.0% - if you assume these trends continue they push past Wisconsin for tipping point state so the electoral bias of 3.8% so far might be a high tide mark for the GOP.
If PA, NV, WI are lost it is precisely 270 ECVs with Arizona likely as the tipping point state.
Bottom line: Biden didn't do much better on average than Dem candidates for House and Senate.
Reading this, it's no surprise that most voters stick with the same party for both President and the Senate/House. But there do appear to be flaws in the analysis.
Firstly, it's based on a subset of states only, since not all of them had concurrent elections.
Secondly, it's using the term "outperformance" to analyse the absolute difference in vote share between Presidential and Senate/House results. More meaningful would be the difference in SWING between last time and this time? Maybe (as we see in the UK) there's always a difference between how some people vote at different levels - this is particularly likely where there's a popular incumbent who draws support across the aisle, for example.
What I'd be interested to know is whether more people swung DEM at the 2020 Presidential compared to 2016, now having seen Trump's performance in office and during the campaign? This the analysis simply doesn't tell us - because it can't, the electoral cycles being out of sync.
Nevertheless the data in this article does suggest there was overperformance by Biden - look at the graph for the House Democrats, and by eye I'd put the average outperformance at 1% of the vote. For the Senate it's less clear, but there's a batch of Trump outperformances that are at fractions of a % almost on the line; there's probably a net 0.5% outperformance for Biden. And he is fortunate that he outperformed in some of the key states such as Michigan, Georgia, NC (delivering a near miss), Ohio, Minnesota. Trump chalked up his apparent larger overperformances mostly where it wasn't much use - Hawaii, California, Montana, New York, WV, RI, Alabama.
That extra 0.5% to 1.0% of the total vote, focused where it mattered, will have been important.
Yes, not all states had senate elections, but everywhere voted for the House - so it's probably OK to compare national House vote share with presidential vote share - although not all House seats had both D and R candidates to vote for so it's still not entirely comparable (8 races with no Dem and 19 with no Republican). Biden's lead in the national vote is currently 4.4% Democrat's House national vote lead is currently 2.9%
So Biden is outperforming House Dems by 1.5% in terms of vote share lead. In 2016 Clinton outperformed House Dems by 3.2% in terms of vote share lead.
As for the senate: Georgia seems to be the only state where Biden's slightly better performance actually gained him any EC votes. OTOH Collins' big overperformance vs Trump in Maine cost the Democrats a critical Senate seat.
That comparison with Clinton's performance suggests that the article's authors may indeed have a point, tbf.
The other factor missing is the strong tendency of US voters to give their presidents second terms - a factor we simply don't have in the UK, where seeing a government in office normally repels a chunk of those who first elected it. I think we look at Trump through our own lens and wonder why someone so abysmal wasn't more easily ejected from office, when in US terms being denied re-election is actually a big deal.
I wouldn't describe it as a "strong" tendency given that three of the last seven Presidents have tried and failed to win reelection (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
Bush I was arguably a third Republican term already, Bush II would have been a fourth not a second.
If you look by party rather than individual the Americans absolutely do give second terms normally. There have been a dozen times since the start of the 20th century that a first-term party has had the President seeking re-election. Of those dozen times 10 were re-elected, the only exceptions being Carter and Trump.
Indeed and after Carter lost in 1980 it took the Democrats 12 years to regain the White House again, which is not a good omen for Republicans at least in terms of future presidential elections.
I wouldn't suggest a dozen years is likely but 8+ is quite probable.
Its why I'd make Harris odds-on favourite to be next President. I'd give the Democrats a 70%+ chance of holding the Oval Office at first time of asking, and give Harris a 75%+ chance of being the nominee next time which combined makes Harris 52.5%+ chance to be next POTUS.
If Biden does not run again then Harris as VP would be favourite for the nomination and the general election (in the unlikely event Biden does run again then he would be favourite), however I would expect Buttigieg to challenge her, especially if she is not polling that well against the GOP contenders and maybe 1 or 2 others eg if Joe Kennedy III runs for Massachussetts governor in 2022 and wins he might also run and AOC would run too as the candidate of the left
Run against the incumbent VP who would become the first female President, when he's young enough that he'll have other chances? That'd be bold. But then, his running this time was certainly bold.
Roads round here are not gritted.I really hope we don’t get snowed in. A barn halfway up a lonely hillside is no place to be trapped.
I get the flu jab. I really hope I am in group 6 for the covid vaccine. I have asthma and bronchiectasis and protein factor c deficiency so if I get this blasted disease my chances are not good.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
The standard of writing and argument on here is often far better than you find with so-called professionals.
I would mention today's thread header as an example, but naturally my legendary modesty prevents me.
Betfair should settle on the 8th. This is safe harbour date beyond which challenges to certification can't be entertained by the courts
That's a very good suggestion - you ought to propose it to them, as it gives them a sensible way out of this mess of their own making.
Their statement says they are getting advice from leading US lawyers on the issue. Those lawyers probably have a better understanding of the electoral calendar and potential challenges than even well informed opinion on here.
You raise an intriguing point. Why US lawyers? I should have thought disputes would be settled under English law.
On-line gambling is illegal in most US States. Not sure how many US lawyers would have the necessary experience.
The question is surely whether Trump is "officially" and "unambiguously" the "projected" winner right now.
If the lawyers say no, since the matter is before the courts still, then that's the answer.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
One thing I've noted is that everyone in the US seems to get the flu jab, or at least is offered it. Whereas here if you're healthy and under 50, no chance.
1) In the US, you pay for healthcare. Your doctor's bank account needs topping up.
2) In the UK, we really know how to penny pinch because the NHS is always skint. Apparently.
Yes. Notably, I think we've also actually had fewer of the annual 'the NHS is going to be in crisis' winter stories this year, just because it already is.
Roads round here are not gritted.I really hope we don’t get snowed in. A barn halfway up a lonely hillside is no place to be trapped.
I get the flu jab. I really hope I am in group 6 for the covid vaccine. I have asthma and bronchiectasis and protein factor c deficiency so if I get this blasted disease my chances are not good.
You're not going to get the disease because you are going to be careful and you are going to get the jab because you are in the queue to get it so all is well.
As for being snowed in - as long as you have the things you need with you, then it should be a great experience - whether it is tea, coffee, whisky, good books, watching the tellybox, writing something, learning something, practising something you have learned or are learning or even, dare I say it, reading and contributing to PB.
Betfair should settle on the 8th. This is safe harbour date beyond which challenges to certification can't be entertained by the courts
That's a very good suggestion - you ought to propose it to them, as it gives them a sensible way out of this mess of their own making.
Their statement says they are getting advice from leading US lawyers on the issue. Those lawyers probably have a better understanding of the electoral calendar and potential challenges than even well informed opinion on here.
You raise an intriguing point. Why US lawyers? I should have thought disputes would be settled under English law.
On-line gambling is illegal in most US States. Not sure how many US lawyers would have the necessary experience.
If Betfair wanted to they could have framed the market as "Who is heading up the steps on the 20th January to be sworn in by John Roberts (Or whoever might be chief justice at the time)". They haven't, the 'next president' is ostensibly NOT on who will be the next president. It's on next projected president which is something completely different. They're lucky it's not closer and Biden *touch wood* has stayed healthy through November so far.
They have an obvious vested interest in giving people the impression that bets will be settled earlier rather than later, so that they aren't discouraged by thoughts of "tying their money up".
They mislead people in order to make more money. They did just the same with Brexit-related bets a year ago.
One thing I've noted is that everyone in the US seems to get the flu jab, or at least is offered it. Whereas here if you're healthy and under 50, no chance.
It's not surprising when a family doctor in the US gets a nice bit of profit for giving you a flu vaccine. Here that incentive is removed so it's done based on need.
Sure, but this year it's not possible to get it privately (Boots or Lloyds). I looked into it since whilst I'm not worried about the flu I'd rather I wasn't sick with the flu and be wondering if it's Covid.
Roads round here are not gritted.I really hope we don’t get snowed in. A barn halfway up a lonely hillside is no place to be trapped.
I get the flu jab. I really hope I am in group 6 for the covid vaccine. I have asthma and bronchiectasis and protein factor c deficiency so if I get this blasted disease my chances are not good.
It might well not snow for long. Few years ago it snowed heavily on Saturday night in Cambridge where we were staying, and all the 50 odd miles home on the Sunday. However by the Monday afternoon it was clear. I know that was Essex as opposed to Cumbria, but live in hope!
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
Excluding asthmatics on inhalers from step 6 on phase 1 is going to cause a row. I know asthmatics under 50 who have been shielding and have assumed that as they get the flu jab that they will be able to get out the house again by around Easter time. To find themselves excluded from Phase One with no idea on timing will be a big blow.
Incidentally, the article raises a question about live animal exports. Presumably these will be allowed from GB to NI, albeit with extra paperwork. And from NI to the Republic. And from the Republic to anywhere else in the EU. So the UK ban seems to have a massive hole in it, which could make things worse. What a mind-boggling shambles this all is.
The animal welfare issue might, sensibly, lead to a ban longer ferry journeys for animals.
Bottom line: Biden didn't do much better on average than Dem candidates for House and Senate.
Reading this, it's no surprise that most voters stick with the same party for both President and the Senate/House. But there do appear to be flaws in the analysis.
Firstly, it's based on a subset of states only, since not all of them had concurrent elections.
Secondly, it's using the term "outperformance" to analyse the absolute difference in vote share between Presidential and Senate/House results. More meaningful would be the difference in SWING between last time and this time? Maybe (as we see in the UK) there's always a difference between how some people vote at different levels - this is particularly likely where there's a popular incumbent who draws support across the aisle, for example.
What I'd be interested to know is whether more people swung DEM at the 2020 Presidential compared to 2016, now having seen Trump's performance in office and during the campaign? This the analysis simply doesn't tell us - because it can't, the electoral cycles being out of sync.
Nevertheless the data in this article does suggest there was overperformance by Biden - look at the graph for the House Democrats, and by eye I'd put the average outperformance at 1% of the vote. For the Senate it's less clear, but there's a batch of Trump outperformances that are at fractions of a % almost on the line; there's probably a net 0.5% outperformance for Biden. And he is fortunate that he outperformed in some of the key states such as Michigan, Georgia, NC (delivering a near miss), Ohio, Minnesota. Trump chalked up his apparent larger overperformances mostly where it wasn't much use - Hawaii, California, Montana, New York, WV, RI, Alabama.
That extra 0.5% to 1.0% of the total vote, focused where it mattered, will have been important.
Yes, not all states had senate elections, but everywhere voted for the House - so it's probably OK to compare national House vote share with presidential vote share - although not all House seats had both D and R candidates to vote for so it's still not entirely comparable (8 races with no Dem and 19 with no Republican). Biden's lead in the national vote is currently 4.4% Democrat's House national vote lead is currently 2.9%
So Biden is outperforming House Dems by 1.5% in terms of vote share lead. In 2016 Clinton outperformed House Dems by 3.2% in terms of vote share lead.
As for the senate: Georgia seems to be the only state where Biden's slightly better performance actually gained him any EC votes. OTOH Collins' big overperformance vs Trump in Maine cost the Democrats a critical Senate seat.
That comparison with Clinton's performance suggests that the article's authors may indeed have a point, tbf.
The other factor missing is the strong tendency of US voters to give their presidents second terms - a factor we simply don't have in the UK, where seeing a government in office normally repels a chunk of those who first elected it. I think we look at Trump through our own lens and wonder why someone so abysmal wasn't more easily ejected from office, when in US terms being denied re-election is actually a big deal.
I wouldn't describe it as a "strong" tendency given that three of the last seven Presidents have tried and failed to win reelection (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
Bush I was arguably a third Republican term already, Bush II would have been a fourth not a second.
If you look by party rather than individual the Americans absolutely do give second terms normally. There have been a dozen times since the start of the 20th century that a first-term party has had the President seeking re-election. Of those dozen times 10 were re-elected, the only exceptions being Carter and Trump.
Indeed and after Carter lost in 1980 it took the Democrats 12 years to regain the White House again, which is not a good omen for Republicans at least in terms of future presidential elections.
I wouldn't suggest a dozen years is likely but 8+ is quite probable.
Its why I'd make Harris odds-on favourite to be next President. I'd give the Democrats a 70%+ chance of holding the Oval Office at first time of asking, and give Harris a 75%+ chance of being the nominee next time which combined makes Harris 52.5%+ chance to be next POTUS.
If Biden does not run again then Harris as VP would be favourite for the nomination and the general election (in the unlikely event Biden does run again then he would be favourite), however I would expect Buttigieg to challenge her, especially if she is not polling that well against the GOP contenders and maybe 1 or 2 others eg if Joe Kennedy III runs for Massachussetts governor in 2022 and wins he might also run and AOC would run too as the candidate of the left
Run against the incumbent VP who would become the first female President, when he's young enough that he'll have other chances? That'd be bold. But then, his running this time was certainly bold.
Buttigieg would be the first openly gay President too, I expect both he and AOC are almost certain to challenge Harris for the Democratic nomination if Biden does not run for re election in 2024
Stephen Bush's Staggers email this morning in re Union Jackery and vaccines:
"But that's why it was not just highly unhelpful, but actively dangerous, for Hancock and Rees-Mogg to use the vaccine to advance a party political argument. No political party or proposition in the democratic world has ever recieved the level of support or buy-in you would need to achieve longterm eradication of a disease via vaccination. When vaccines become a partisan argument they lose support rather than gain them.
By trying to fold vaccines into an argument for Brexit, even if the Conservatives are winning over Leave voters, they are going to strengthen and deepen anti-vaccination sentiments among Remain voters."
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
He is misunderstanding the process. If the EMA hadn't moved to Amsterdam it is likely that the whole of the EU would have benefited from early approval.
Betfair should settle on the 8th. This is safe harbour date beyond which challenges to certification can't be entertained by the courts
That's a very good suggestion - you ought to propose it to them, as it gives them a sensible way out of this mess of their own making.
Their statement says they are getting advice from leading US lawyers on the issue. Those lawyers probably have a better understanding of the electoral calendar and potential challenges than even well informed opinion on here.
You raise an intriguing point. Why US lawyers? I should have thought disputes would be settled under English law.
On-line gambling is illegal in most US States. Not sure how many US lawyers would have the necessary experience.
If Betfair wanted to they could have framed the market as "Who is heading up the steps on the 20th January to be sworn in by John Roberts (Or whoever might be chief justice at the time)". They haven't, the 'next president' is ostensibly NOT on who will be the next president. It's on next projected president which is something completely different. They're lucky it's not closer and Biden *touch wood* has stayed healthy through November so far.
They have an obvious vested interest in giving people the impression that bets will be settled earlier rather than later, so that they aren't discouraged by thoughts of "tying their money up".
They mislead people in order to make more money. They did just the same with Brexit-related bets a year ago.
I'm not worried about having money tied up, and if it's to be tied up I'd rather it be on a long term exchange rather than a bookie's bet as those go missing and the ability to say lay Trump gives a no lose potential should anything untoward happen. It's the rules ambiguity that is concerning here.
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
I wouldn't think that the MRHA would be susceptible to political pressure, but it does seem that the European Agency has asked for more detail. Are they gilding the lily, or just being more thorough? Time will tell.
Or did the MRHA simply take the line that with several thousand dying every week plus a significant number of long term impaired health, is even a couple of weeks gathering and analysing further data too much cost?
A risk, but a risk worth taking, is a reasonable position. Vaccine complications are rare, but on the other hand .uite damaging to confidence. Not an easy decision.
My impression is that EMA is more focused on governance than MHRA. EMA's starting point is that there will be at least some serious adverse effects with these vaccines. So what are your risk management plans? How do you identify at risk recipients of the vaccine and how do you report and manage adverse effects? MHRA doesn't mention any of that in its press release, simply saying it was making a decision to authorise based on the vaccine's quality, effectiveness and safety and that deployment is not within its remit. We know that EMA is looking at more data for longer and probably at more depth than MHRA. It might be because EMA is making a more granular decision than MHRA
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
He is misunderstanding the process. If the EMA hadn't (been forced to move to) moved to Amsterdam it is likely that the whole of the EU would have benefited from early approval.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
Bugger... you’re right
Sadly yes, and I don't seem to get any extra points for having a zip down my chest, or hypertension, or TB scarred lungs, in addition to my asthma
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
I wouldn't think that the MRHA would be susceptible to political pressure, but it does seem that the European Agency has asked for more detail. Are they gilding the lily, or just being more thorough? Time will tell.
Or did the MRHA simply take the line that with several thousand dying every week plus a significant number of long term impaired health, is even a couple of weeks gathering and analysing further data too much cost?
A risk, but a risk worth taking, is a reasonable position. Vaccine complications are rare, but on the other hand quite damaging to confidence. Not an easy decision.
You know far more about this than my but FWIW my perception is that the key to this early decision has been the real time sharing of data as it came in by Pfizer and others so that a lot of the work had been done by the time that the government asked them to make the formal decision. I don't know if the EMA did the same but if they started later they will finish later, that is inevitable.
With over 10k a day deaths being recorded worldwide I do agree that cautious risk taking is appropriate but no doubt they will be watching the outcome of this first wave of vaccinations very carefully.
I would hope that the MRHA wouldn't take any risks that could be avoided by taking an extra 2 weeks. The damage done to confidence in vaccines if approval has to be withdrawn or modified would have terrible long-term consequences. Whereas would the 2 weeks really be lost - wouldn't they be used anyway to increase supplies and prepare logistics?
So I'm not sure why the EMA is taking longer, someone suggested losing the MRHA is part of the reason - in which case those of us in the rest of Europe would have yet another thing to blame Brexit for!
There does seem to be a lot of circumstantial evidence that the EMA has been weakened by its move from London. This is no doubt a temporary thing and the timing is unfortunate. I am yet to be convinced that taking longer is either "safer" or "better". It may just mean that the same work had been done less quickly.
I think both sides are 'right' on this.
Yes, technically the UK could have used emergency national powers to temporarily approve the vaccine had it still been a member of the EU. In that sense Brexit hasn't given it new powers to do so, especially since all the current EU regulations will apply until at least 1st January 2021.
However, as we've seen from the somewhat emotional and defensive reaction across the channel in the last 24 hours, to have done so whilst we were still an EU member would have been seen as extremely bad form. Therefore, just as "in theory" we'd have had powers to suspend aspects of free movement in certain emergency situations we would not have done here either for political reasons.
For the EU and its institutions the EU is all about 'solidarity' so for the UK to "get ahead" of all the members by nationally approving first would have been seen as about as polite as lopping the nose off the end of the brie and eating it all by ourselves. They'd have been horrified.
So, yes, we could have done this whilst being a member of the EU - but we never would have.
The Times also mention that the MHRA has seen a large influx of expertise from the relocation of the EMA and UK based scientific regulators (many of them EU citizens) not wanting to relocate with it to Amsterdam. They say this has been a factor on both sides, giving the MHRA a huge amount of capacity at exactly the right time and leaving the EMA short staffed during a pandemic.
I'd speculate that if the MHRA hadn't split off from the EMA until the end of next year the whole EU would have benefited from the rapid approval. Everyone talking about it being rushed is chatting shit, even Fauci unless he's suggesting that Pfizer submitted it for approval with any chance of it being rejected.
If I was a European politician I'd be pointing out that Moderna hasn't sent it's vaccine data to the MHRA for approval yet while the EMA has already got it and this could be because of the relative size of the markets. It's bullshit but would be the perfect kind of remainer Twitter fodder that we see posted on here by the usual suspects.
so it's disruption caused by Brexit that has slowed vaccine approval in Europe? thanks for clearing that up. another great "upside" of Brexit I suppose.
Tbf, the British government did offer mutual recognition in medicines regulation, the EU rejected it as a "consequence of leaving". It was pointed out by many on here and in the industry that this was a stupid stance for the EU to take because the MHRA is a world leading regulator with huge capacity and that the UK is a gigantic market for pharma (import and export) in or out of the EU so regulatory recognition would be more beneficial for the EU.
The blame for this lies with Mr Barnier and Mr Macron, between the two of them they rejected the UK offer.
Stephen Bush's Staggers email this morning in re Union Jackery and vaccines:
"But that's why it was not just highly unhelpful, but actively dangerous, for Hancock and Rees-Mogg to use the vaccine to advance a party political argument. No political party or proposition in the democratic world has ever recieved the level of support or buy-in you would need to achieve longterm eradication of a disease via vaccination. When vaccines become a partisan argument they lose support rather than gain them.
By trying to fold vaccines into an argument for Brexit, even if the Conservatives are winning over Leave voters, they are going to strengthen and deepen anti-vaccination sentiments among Remain voters."
On the other hand, it's the Leave voters that they need to win over given the likelihood that most of the anti-vaxxers are also Leave voters.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
No, they do. Read Table 19.4 para 1 in the flu book: Asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of inhaled or systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission.
Now read Table 3 para 1 in the covid book: Individuals with a severe lung condition, including those with asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission
It is a copy paste job. If you get the flu jab for asthma, by the green book you will get the covid jab. @Cyclefree.
I'm not usually one to get annoyed about this, but it's really important. DO NOT POST COMMENTS LIKE THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE DOCUMENT. I cannot be clearer. It causes undue distress to people who might suddenly feel that they aren't being covered when the entire table is almost a complete copy and paste with a few ADDITIONS to the covid book.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
He is misunderstanding the process. If the EMA hadn't moved to Amsterdam it is likely that the whole of the EU would have benefited from early approval.
The broader point is that Brexit potentially provides opportunities for regulatory competition - something the EU seems determined to stop via the LPF.
Depends on whether you think competition is good or not.
Roads round here are not gritted.I really hope we don’t get snowed in. A barn halfway up a lonely hillside is no place to be trapped.
I get the flu jab. I really hope I am in group 6 for the covid vaccine. I have asthma and bronchiectasis and protein factor c deficiency so if I get this blasted disease my chances are not good.
You're not going to get the disease because you are going to be careful and you are going to get the jab because you are in the queue to get it so all is well.
As for being snowed in - as long as you have the things you need with you, then it should be a great experience - whether it is tea, coffee, whisky, good books, watching the tellybox, writing something, learning something, practising something you have learned or are learning or even, dare I say it, reading and contributing to PB.
Daughter has to get to her work every day. If we’re snowed in or the roads are dangerous she’s stuffed. As if she hasn’t enough to worry about it at the moment ......
I have been stuck in this bloody barn for 10 months now. All the things you describe lost their appeal long ago ......
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
I wouldn't think that the MRHA would be susceptible to political pressure, but it does seem that the European Agency has asked for more detail. Are they gilding the lily, or just being more thorough? Time will tell.
Or did the MRHA simply take the line that with several thousand dying every week plus a significant number of long term impaired health, is even a couple of weeks gathering and analysing further data too much cost?
A risk, but a risk worth taking, is a reasonable position. Vaccine complications are rare, but on the other hand .uite damaging to confidence. Not an easy decision.
My impression is that EMA is more focused on governance than MHRA. EMA's starting point is that there will be at least some serious adverse effects with these vaccines. So what are your risk management plans? How do you identify at risk recipients of the vaccine and how do you report and manage adverse effects? MHRA doesn't mention any of that in its press release, simply saying it was making a decision to authorise based on the vaccine's quality, effectiveness and safety and that deployment is not within its remit. We know that EMA is looking at more data for longer and probably at more depth than MHRA. It might be because EMA is making a more granular decision than MHRA
Bloody hell I'm an expert and all I did was listen to Sir Kent Woods on Nick Ferrari this morning.
He explained it very clearly.
One more time - the EMA doesn't do any assessing. It outsources it to national agencies. For vaccines this has been the MHRA. Since the EMA's move to NL, the MHRA hasn't done this for the EMA and hence did it for themselves (ie us).
The reason we are ahead of the game is because we used the "rolling review" which allowed us to assess the trials on an ongoing basis rather than have all the paperwork dumped on us once the trials had been completed. Which latter is what has happened to the EMA. Hence the delay vs us because we were assessing as the trial was proceding.
So all we can say is that our leaving the EU has resulted in the EU not getting the vaccine as quickly as it would have had we still been a member.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
Bugger... you’re right
Sadly yes, and I don't seem to get any extra points for having a zip down my chest, or hypertension, or TB scarred lungs, in addition to my asthma
Wow I hope you do get it in a timely manner. Can you not self-present as having a severe lung condition - one of the categories (the first, in fact)?
Stephen Bush's Staggers email this morning in re Union Jackery and vaccines:
"But that's why it was not just highly unhelpful, but actively dangerous, for Hancock and Rees-Mogg to use the vaccine to advance a party political argument. No political party or proposition in the democratic world has ever recieved the level of support or buy-in you would need to achieve longterm eradication of a disease via vaccination. When vaccines become a partisan argument they lose support rather than gain them.
By trying to fold vaccines into an argument for Brexit, even if the Conservatives are winning over Leave voters, they are going to strengthen and deepen anti-vaccination sentiments among Remain voters."
That sounds like pure garbage to me. Are 'Remain' voters (whoever they are) really so dumb that that they'd not take the vaccine purely to spite Boris? For that matter, if Brexit or political party support was even remotely relevant to the question, how does that change things? It's not as though Keir Starmer, Nicola Sturgeon, Ed Davey or any other serious politician* is going to be criticising the government for rolling out the vaccine, nor are our EU friends going to be holding back as soon as they've got the paperwork done.
* Naturally I exclude Corbyns from that definition
Incidentally, the article raises a question about live animal exports. Presumably these will be allowed from GB to NI, albeit with extra paperwork. And from NI to the Republic. And from the Republic to anywhere else in the EU. So the UK ban seems to have a massive hole in it, which could make things worse. What a mind-boggling shambles this all is.
And that's the heart of the matter. The UK has done something (because Brexit means it can) without working out what (if any) the knock-on effects on others is. Because that's Somebody Else's Problem.
That's the great Brexit freedom; we can only be a truly nimble nation if we don't consider the effects of our actions on others. It's the tension between "Britain is a sovereign island" and "No man is an island". And we all have to work through that tension in our lifetimes, and most of us come down on Donne's side of the argument.
One thing I've noted is that everyone in the US seems to get the flu jab, or at least is offered it. Whereas here if you're healthy and under 50, no chance.
In a normal year in the UK its offered to everyone regardless of age at a cost of £7 by some supermarkets. At what price are Americans being offered it at? Quick search online says $30-$40 is normal. They are making massive margins, of course they advertise it to everyone.
Stephen Bush's Staggers email this morning in re Union Jackery and vaccines:
"But that's why it was not just highly unhelpful, but actively dangerous, for Hancock and Rees-Mogg to use the vaccine to advance a party political argument. No political party or proposition in the democratic world has ever recieved the level of support or buy-in you would need to achieve longterm eradication of a disease via vaccination. When vaccines become a partisan argument they lose support rather than gain them.
By trying to fold vaccines into an argument for Brexit, even if the Conservatives are winning over Leave voters, they are going to strengthen and deepen anti-vaccination sentiments among Remain voters."
Interestingly Johnson twice declined the opportunity to claim a "Brexit Bonus" in his press conference yesterday - as I noted when the first claims about it came out, its a daft thing to do.
While this decision is not directly the result of Brexit, it does illustrate the potential advantages of regulatory competition - something the EU seems determined to thwart.
One thing I've noted is that everyone in the US seems to get the flu jab, or at least is offered it. Whereas here if you're healthy and under 50, no chance.
1) In the US, you pay for healthcare. Your doctor's bank account needs topping up.
2) In the UK, we really know how to penny pinch because the NHS is always skint. Apparently.
Stephen Bush's Staggers email this morning in re Union Jackery and vaccines:
"But that's why it was not just highly unhelpful, but actively dangerous, for Hancock and Rees-Mogg to use the vaccine to advance a party political argument. No political party or proposition in the democratic world has ever recieved the level of support or buy-in you would need to achieve longterm eradication of a disease via vaccination. When vaccines become a partisan argument they lose support rather than gain them.
By trying to fold vaccines into an argument for Brexit, even if the Conservatives are winning over Leave voters, they are going to strengthen and deepen anti-vaccination sentiments among Remain voters."
That sounds like pure garbage to me. Are 'Remain' voters (whoever they are) really so dumb that that they'd not take the vaccine purely to spite Boris? For that matter, if Brexit or political party support was even remotely relevant to the question, how does that change things? It's not as though Keir Starmer, Nicola Sturgeon, Ed Davey or any other serious politician* is going to be criticising the government for rolling out the vaccine, nor are our EU friends going to be holding back as soon as they've got the paperwork done.
* Naturally I exclude Corbyns from that definition
I suggest you look out there. Various anti-government groups are already selling the "Pushed by Boris, dangerous, Faucci says it's rushed" line....
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
No, they do. Read Table 19.4 para 1 in the flu book: Asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of inhaled or systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission.
Now read Table 3 para 1 in the covid book: Individuals with a severe lung condition, including those with asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission
It is a copy paste job. If you get the flu jab for asthma, by the green book you will get the covid jab. @Cyclefree.
I'm not usually one to get annoyed about this, but it's really important. DO NOT POST COMMENTS LIKE THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE DOCUMENT. I cannot be clearer. It causes undue distress to people who might suddenly feel that they aren't being covered when the entire table is almost a complete copy and paste with a few ADDITIONS to the covid book.
I cannot find the word 'inhaled' anywhere in the covid book!
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
Bugger... you’re right
Sadly yes, and I don't seem to get any extra points for having a zip down my chest, or hypertension, or TB scarred lungs, in addition to my asthma
Wow I hope you do get it in a timely manner. Can you not self-present as having a severe lung condition - one of the categories (the first, in fact)?
Sorry, where are you getting this information from? The green book is extremely clear as I posted below. Steroid using asthma sufferers are the first catergory listed in Table 3, which is a direct lift from the flu green book.
Interestingly Johnson twice declined the opportunity to claim a "Brexit Bonus" in his press conference yesterday - as I noted when the first claims about it came out, its a daft thing to do.
While this decision is not directly the result of Brexit, it does illustrate the potential advantages of regulatory competition - something the EU seems determined to thwart.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
He is misunderstanding the process. If the EMA hadn't moved to Amsterdam it is likely that the whole of the EU would have benefited from early approval.
The broader point is that Brexit potentially provides opportunities for regulatory competition - something the EU seems determined to stop via the LPF.
Depends on whether you think competition is good or not.
It's not a case of "competition" because what is the prize for the winner? Is that how the MHRA sees it - that they are competing against other agencies? I doubt it. Sir Kent didn't mention anything on the subject, but I feel he would have been horrified by the suggestion.
In the EU case, pooling resources (national regulatory bodies) and the EMA allocating to the most able one in each particular instance seems to be very sensible.
But obviously for Brexiters not only must Britain win, the EU must lose.
'At least then we shall further confirmation that 14 Dec is the latest settlement date.'
Thanks for digging out that press release. It saved me time. Note however that the committment to the Dec 14th date remains equivocal. So we still don't know for sure when they are going to settle, or indeed on what basis. The reference to '...a conclusive outcome before that date' is likewise inconclusive. We would all expect from that that they are referring to a Trump concession but who knows? What if Biden dropped dead? Would that be a 'conclusive outcome'? What if Civil War breaks out and Trump stages a coup?
Ok, we're in the realm of fantasy here but so are some of those who can't see that Betfair have moved the goalposts, and have got themselves in a right pickle as a result.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
One thing I've noted is that everyone in the US seems to get the flu jab, or at least is offered it. Whereas here if you're healthy and under 50, no chance.
Nothing is free in the US, though, is it? They even charge you to walk on many footpaths.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
Bugger... you’re right
Sadly yes, and I don't seem to get any extra points for having a zip down my chest, or hypertension, or TB scarred lungs, in addition to my asthma
Wow I hope you do get it in a timely manner. Can you not self-present as having a severe lung condition - one of the categories (the first, in fact)?
Sorry, where are you getting this information from? The green book is extremely clear as I posted below. Steroid using asthma sufferers are the first catergory listed in Table 3, which is a direct lift from the flu green book.
Stephen Bush's Staggers email this morning in re Union Jackery and vaccines:
"But that's why it was not just highly unhelpful, but actively dangerous, for Hancock and Rees-Mogg to use the vaccine to advance a party political argument. No political party or proposition in the democratic world has ever recieved the level of support or buy-in you would need to achieve longterm eradication of a disease via vaccination. When vaccines become a partisan argument they lose support rather than gain them.
By trying to fold vaccines into an argument for Brexit, even if the Conservatives are winning over Leave voters, they are going to strengthen and deepen anti-vaccination sentiments among Remain voters."
That sounds like pure garbage to me. Are 'Remain' voters (whoever they are) really so dumb that that they'd not take the vaccine purely to spite Boris? For that matter, if Brexit or political party support was even remotely relevant to the question, how does that change things? It's not as though Keir Starmer, Nicola Sturgeon, Ed Davey or any other serious politician* is going to be criticising the government for rolling out the vaccine, nor are our EU friends going to be holding back as soon as they've got the paperwork done.
* Naturally I exclude Corbyns from that definition
I suggest you look out there. Various anti-government groups are already selling the "Pushed by Boris, dangerous, Faucci says it's rushed" line....
Sure, but not 'Remain' voters particularly, I would expect. It will be various loons from the Corbynista world and a bunch of loons from other extremes - more Daily Mail than Guardian.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
Well, as the have changed the appearance of their passport since joining the EU it looks like they already have held out against "EU pressure".
Maybe at some point in the future they might find it a good idea to have the same colour passports as the rest of the EU, who knows. Anyway, his original point is both ridiculous and false. Or is it supposed to be satire?
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
We can never see the counterfactual of this argument. It's unprovable nonsense.
Perhaps a portent of things to come. Since it will probably be quite challenging to catch sight of genuine tangible and significant examples of that most exotic family of creatures - the Benefits of Brexit - there will be a need to classify almost every benign development in national life that occurs over the next few years as being one of them.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
No, they do. Read Table 19.4 para 1 in the flu book: Asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of inhaled or systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission.
Now read Table 3 para 1 in the covid book: Individuals with a severe lung condition, including those with asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission
It is a copy paste job. If you get the flu jab for asthma, by the green book you will get the covid jab. @Cyclefree.
I'm not usually one to get annoyed about this, but it's really important. DO NOT POST COMMENTS LIKE THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE DOCUMENT. I cannot be clearer. It causes undue distress to people who might suddenly feel that they aren't being covered when the entire table is almost a complete copy and paste with a few ADDITIONS to the covid book.
I cannot find the word 'inhaled' anywhere in the covid book!
Ah, my apologies that omission didn't stick out to me. It is indeed odd. I suspect that it isn't intentional but it might be worth bringing it to the attention of the BBC or Sky News health correspondent to clarify.
Stephen Bush's Staggers email this morning in re Union Jackery and vaccines:
"But that's why it was not just highly unhelpful, but actively dangerous, for Hancock and Rees-Mogg to use the vaccine to advance a party political argument. No political party or proposition in the democratic world has ever recieved the level of support or buy-in you would need to achieve longterm eradication of a disease via vaccination. When vaccines become a partisan argument they lose support rather than gain them.
By trying to fold vaccines into an argument for Brexit, even if the Conservatives are winning over Leave voters, they are going to strengthen and deepen anti-vaccination sentiments among Remain voters."
Interestingly Johnson twice declined the opportunity to claim a "Brexit Bonus" in his press conference yesterday - as I noted when the first claims about it came out, its a daft thing to do.
While this decision is not directly the result of Brexit, it does illustrate the potential advantages of regulatory competition - something the EU seems determined to thwart.
Not sure where the competition is in vaccine approval. It's not as if someone in the US can choose the MHRA or EMA over the FDA.
More broadly, the EU is not trying to stop the UK competing with it on regulation. It is just saying that if that is what the UK wants to do it will get less access to the Single Market. That is exactly what competition looks like, isn't it?
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
He is misunderstanding the process. If the EMA hadn't moved to Amsterdam it is likely that the whole of the EU would have benefited from early approval.
The broader point is that Brexit potentially provides opportunities for regulatory competition - something the EU seems determined to stop via the LPF.
Depends on whether you think competition is good or not.
It's not a case of "competition" because what is the prize for the winner? Is that how the MHRA sees it - that they are competing against other agencies? I doubt it. Sir Kent didn't mention anything on the subject, but I feel he would have been horrified by the suggestion.
In the EU case, pooling resources (national regulatory bodies) and the EMA allocating to the most able one in each particular instance seems to be very sensible.
So not so sensible to i) cut off the EU from their expert in vaccines and ii) reject mutual recognition.
If the MHRA can do the same job as the EMA, just faster, in the middle of a pandemic, isn't that a good thing?
Roads round here are not gritted.I really hope we don’t get snowed in. A barn halfway up a lonely hillside is no place to be trapped.
I get the flu jab. I really hope I am in group 6 for the covid vaccine. I have asthma and bronchiectasis and protein factor c deficiency so if I get this blasted disease my chances are not good.
Look on the bright side. Snowed in half way up a hill you’re not going to catch anything
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
Bugger... you’re right
Sadly yes, and I don't seem to get any extra points for having a zip down my chest, or hypertension, or TB scarred lungs, in addition to my asthma
Wow I hope you do get it in a timely manner. Can you not self-present as having a severe lung condition - one of the categories (the first, in fact)?
Sorry, where are you getting this information from? The green book is extremely clear as I posted below. Steroid using asthma sufferers are the first catergory listed in Table 3, which is a direct lift from the flu green book.
p.9 of that document.
Am I reading it incorrectly?
No you're absolutely correct, it's an extremely subtle omission.
Stephen Bush's Staggers email this morning in re Union Jackery and vaccines:
"But that's why it was not just highly unhelpful, but actively dangerous, for Hancock and Rees-Mogg to use the vaccine to advance a party political argument. No political party or proposition in the democratic world has ever recieved the level of support or buy-in you would need to achieve longterm eradication of a disease via vaccination. When vaccines become a partisan argument they lose support rather than gain them.
By trying to fold vaccines into an argument for Brexit, even if the Conservatives are winning over Leave voters, they are going to strengthen and deepen anti-vaccination sentiments among Remain voters."
That sounds like pure garbage to me. Are 'Remain' voters (whoever they are) really so dumb that that they'd not take the vaccine purely to spite Boris? For that matter, if Brexit or political party support was even remotely relevant to the question, how does that change things? It's not as though Keir Starmer, Nicola Sturgeon, Ed Davey or any other serious politician* is going to be criticising the government for rolling out the vaccine, nor are our EU friends going to be holding back as soon as they've got the paperwork done.
* Naturally I exclude Corbyns from that definition
I suggest you look out there. Various anti-government groups are already selling the "Pushed by Boris, dangerous, Faucci says it's rushed" line....
Sure, but not 'Remain' voters particularly, I would expect. It will be various loons from the Corbynista world and a bunch of loons from other extremes - more Daily Mail than Guardian.
The Corbyn loons tend to be anti-EU anyway. Piers Corbyn is for sure.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
He is misunderstanding the process. If the EMA hadn't moved to Amsterdam it is likely that the whole of the EU would have benefited from early approval.
The broader point is that Brexit potentially provides opportunities for regulatory competition - something the EU seems determined to stop via the LPF.
Depends on whether you think competition is good or not.
It's not a case of "competition" because what is the prize for the winner? Is that how the MHRA sees it - that they are competing against other agencies? I doubt it. Sir Kent didn't mention anything on the subject, but I feel he would have been horrified by the suggestion.
In the EU case, pooling resources (national regulatory bodies) and the EMA allocating to the most able one in each particular instance seems to be very sensible.
So not so sensible to i) cut off the EU from their expert in vaccines and ii) reject mutual recognition.
If the MHRA can do the same job as the EMA, just faster, in the middle of a pandemic, isn't that a good thing?
Beyond my paygrade to answer that. The MHRA is one of the largest regulatory bodies. But it's not the only one. And this crisis required a vaccine which the MHRA has typically taken the lead on.
But I've no idea if the French or German or Spanish regulatory bodies take the lead on other things which require approval.
Gut feel says they probably do. Pooled resources sounds sensible to me.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
Bugger... you’re right
Sadly yes, and I don't seem to get any extra points for having a zip down my chest, or hypertension, or TB scarred lungs, in addition to my asthma
Wow I hope you do get it in a timely manner. Can you not self-present as having a severe lung condition - one of the categories (the first, in fact)?
Each time I catch a cold, my right lung gets tight, wheezy, phlegmy and sometimes painful, whilst my left lung typically remains unaffected. I'm fairly sure that I was once told this is bronchiectasis, but that doesn't appear on my online medical record. I have just penned a letter to my doctor asking that they check my paper file (if that still exists). If I am right, that would place me in group 6 and failing that I am in group 7 anyway.
Stephen Bush's Staggers email this morning in re Union Jackery and vaccines:
"But that's why it was not just highly unhelpful, but actively dangerous, for Hancock and Rees-Mogg to use the vaccine to advance a party political argument. No political party or proposition in the democratic world has ever recieved the level of support or buy-in you would need to achieve longterm eradication of a disease via vaccination. When vaccines become a partisan argument they lose support rather than gain them.
By trying to fold vaccines into an argument for Brexit, even if the Conservatives are winning over Leave voters, they are going to strengthen and deepen anti-vaccination sentiments among Remain voters."
Interestingly Johnson twice declined the opportunity to claim a "Brexit Bonus" in his press conference yesterday - as I noted when the first claims about it came out, its a daft thing to do.
While this decision is not directly the result of Brexit, it does illustrate the potential advantages of regulatory competition - something the EU seems determined to thwart.
Not sure where the competition is in vaccine approval. It's not as if someone in the US can choose the MHRA or EMA over the FDA.
More broadly, the EU is not trying to stop the UK competing with it on regulation. It is just saying that if that is what the UK wants to do it will get less access to the Single Market. That is exactly what competition looks like, isn't it?
But we're not trying to compete, the government offered mutual recognition of medicines regulation. The EU rejected it and is now paying the price for that loss of expertise. Many on here and in the industry said this would happen at the time when remainers were partying over what they saw as the grave of UK pharma.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
Bugger... you’re right
Sadly yes, and I don't seem to get any extra points for having a zip down my chest, or hypertension, or TB scarred lungs, in addition to my asthma
Wow I hope you do get it in a timely manner. Can you not self-present as having a severe lung condition - one of the categories (the first, in fact)?
Each time I catch a cold, my right lung gets tight, wheezy, phlegmy and sometimes painful, whilst my left lung typically remains unaffected. I'm fairly sure that I was once told this is bronchiectasis, but that doesn't appear on my online medical record. I have just penned a letter to my doctor asking that they check my paper file (if that still exists). If I am right, that would place me in group 6 and failing that I am in group 7 anyway.
Betfair should settle on the 8th. This is safe harbour date beyond which challenges to certification can't be entertained by the courts
That's a very good suggestion - you ought to propose it to them, as it gives them a sensible way out of this mess of their own making.
Their statement says they are getting advice from leading US lawyers on the issue. Those lawyers probably have a better understanding of the electoral calendar and potential challenges than even well informed opinion on here.
You raise an intriguing point. Why US lawyers? I should have thought disputes would be settled under English law.
On-line gambling is illegal in most US States. Not sure how many US lawyers would have the necessary experience.
The question is surely whether Trump is "officially" and "unambiguously" the "projected" winner right now.
If the lawyers say no, since the matter is before the courts still, then that's the answer.
No, the question is who was the projected winner in the sense that Betfair intended, and on which they started settling, which also happened to be they way most of us understood it.
Your approach seems to countenance the possibility of a succession of projected winners, quite possibly changing over time as time passes and events unfold. There is no finality. It is as absurd as it is impractical.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
We can never see the counterfactual of this argument. It's unprovable nonsense.
Not an uncommon problem with counterfactuals. But where would PB, politics and religion be without them? We would have to discuss factuals and soon run out of things to say.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
No, they do. Read Table 19.4 para 1 in the flu book: Asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of inhaled or systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission.
Now read Table 3 para 1 in the covid book: Individuals with a severe lung condition, including those with asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission
It is a copy paste job. If you get the flu jab for asthma, by the green book you will get the covid jab. @Cyclefree.
I'm not usually one to get annoyed about this, but it's really important. DO NOT POST COMMENTS LIKE THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE DOCUMENT. I cannot be clearer. It causes undue distress to people who might suddenly feel that they aren't being covered when the entire table is almost a complete copy and paste with a few ADDITIONS to the covid book.
I cannot find the word 'inhaled' anywhere in the covid book!
Ah, my apologies that omission didn't stick out to me. It is indeed odd. I suspect that it isn't intentional but it might be worth bringing it to the attention of the BBC or Sky News health correspondent to clarify.
Apologies accepted. The word 'inhaled' makes several appearances in the flu book, so I don't think the omission is a typo.
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
I wouldn't think that the MRHA would be susceptible to political pressure, but it does seem that the European Agency has asked for more detail. Are they gilding the lily, or just being more thorough? Time will tell.
Or did the MRHA simply take the line that with several thousand dying every week plus a significant number of long term impaired health, is even a couple of weeks gathering and analysing further data too much cost?
A risk, but a risk worth taking, is a reasonable position. Vaccine complications are rare, but on the other hand .uite damaging to confidence. Not an easy decision.
My impression is that EMA is more focused on governance than MHRA. EMA's starting point is that there will be at least some serious adverse effects with these vaccines. So what are your risk management plans? How do you identify at risk recipients of the vaccine and how do you report and manage adverse effects? MHRA doesn't mention any of that in its press release, simply saying it was making a decision to authorise based on the vaccine's quality, effectiveness and safety and that deployment is not within its remit. We know that EMA is looking at more data for longer and probably at more depth than MHRA. It might be because EMA is making a more granular decision than MHRA
Bloody hell I'm an expert and all I did was listen to Sir Kent Woods on Nick Ferrari this morning.
He explained it very clearly.
One more time - the EMA doesn't do any assessing. It outsources it to national agencies. For vaccines this has been the MHRA. Since the EMA's move to NL, the MHRA hasn't done this for the EMA and hence did it for themselves (ie us).
The reason we are ahead of the game is because we used the "rolling review" which allowed us to assess the trials on an ongoing basis rather than have all the paperwork dumped on us once the trials had been completed. Which latter is what has happened to the EMA. Hence the delay vs us because we were assessing as the trial was proceding.
So all we can say is that our leaving the EU has resulted in the EU not getting the vaccine as quickly as it would have had we still been a member.
My point is EMA appears to be doing different analysis from the MHRA. If the UK is sensible it will be informed by that analysis once it is out. It doesn't have to repeat it. So the question then becomes whether you go ahead with implementation on less detailed data on the basis that the vaccine is generally safe. As I understand it.
The number of people testing positive for coronavirus in England has decreased by the largest amount since cases began to rise steeply from the end of August, according to the latest NHS test-and-trace performance figures.
The figures, published by the Department of Health and Social Care, show that 110,620 people tested positive for coronavirus in the week ending 25 November, a decrease of 28% compared with the previous week. These figures indicate that the spread of the virus is decreasing significantly, as the week before showed a decrease of 8.7% in terms of positive coronavirus tests.
Interestingly, the reaction I am hearing anecdotally in Germany is that people are glad that other people are "trying the vaccine first". This is not from vaccine-sceptics, just people who would rather not be first in line - which most of them aren't going to be anyway so kind of silly really
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
No, they do. Read Table 19.4 para 1 in the flu book: Asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of inhaled or systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission.
Now read Table 3 para 1 in the covid book: Individuals with a severe lung condition, including those with asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission
It is a copy paste job. If you get the flu jab for asthma, by the green book you will get the covid jab. @Cyclefree.
I'm not usually one to get annoyed about this, but it's really important. DO NOT POST COMMENTS LIKE THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE DOCUMENT. I cannot be clearer. It causes undue distress to people who might suddenly feel that they aren't being covered when the entire table is almost a complete copy and paste with a few ADDITIONS to the covid book.
I cannot find the word 'inhaled' anywhere in the covid book!
Ah, my apologies that omission didn't stick out to me. It is indeed odd. I suspect that it isn't intentional but it might be worth bringing it to the attention of the BBC or Sky News health correspondent to clarify.
Apologies accepted. The word 'inhaled' makes several appearances in the flu book, so I don't think the omission is a typo.
I've reached out to Andrew Sparrow on twitter (Guardian Liveblog editor) and I'm going to send an email about it to a couple of the health correspondents.
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
I wouldn't think that the MRHA would be susceptible to political pressure, but it does seem that the European Agency has asked for more detail. Are they gilding the lily, or just being more thorough? Time will tell.
Or did the MRHA simply take the line that with several thousand dying every week plus a significant number of long term impaired health, is even a couple of weeks gathering and analysing further data too much cost?
A risk, but a risk worth taking, is a reasonable position. Vaccine complications are rare, but on the other hand .uite damaging to confidence. Not an easy decision.
My impression is that EMA is more focused on governance than MHRA. EMA's starting point is that there will be at least some serious adverse effects with these vaccines. So what are your risk management plans? How do you identify at risk recipients of the vaccine and how do you report and manage adverse effects? MHRA doesn't mention any of that in its press release, simply saying it was making a decision to authorise based on the vaccine's quality, effectiveness and safety and that deployment is not within its remit. We know that EMA is looking at more data for longer and probably at more depth than MHRA. It might be because EMA is making a more granular decision than MHRA
Bloody hell I'm an expert and all I did was listen to Sir Kent Woods on Nick Ferrari this morning.
He explained it very clearly.
One more time - the EMA doesn't do any assessing. It outsources it to national agencies. For vaccines this has been the MHRA. Since the EMA's move to NL, the MHRA hasn't done this for the EMA and hence did it for themselves (ie us).
The reason we are ahead of the game is because we used the "rolling review" which allowed us to assess the trials on an ongoing basis rather than have all the paperwork dumped on us once the trials had been completed. Which latter is what has happened to the EMA. Hence the delay vs us because we were assessing as the trial was proceding.
So all we can say is that our leaving the EU has resulted in the EU not getting the vaccine as quickly as it would have had we still been a member.
My point is EMA appears to be doing different analysis from the MHRA. If the UK is sensible it will be informed by that analysis once it is out. It doesn't have to repeat it. So the question then becomes whether you go ahead with implementation on less detailed data on the basis that the vaccine is generally safe. As I understand it.
Not to labour the point but I don't think the EMA does any analysis. It farms that out to national agencies. The MHRA for vaccines, for example, it seems.
It looks like there certainly will be a duplication of work as one national agency or several will now have to do the assessment work. And the conclusions of that assessment might reflect or disagree with that of the MHRA (I know where my money is but it's possible).
Comments
Its why I'd make Harris odds-on favourite to be next President. I'd give the Democrats a 70%+ chance of holding the Oval Office at first time of asking, and give Harris a 75%+ chance of being the nominee next time which combined makes Harris 52.5%+ chance to be next POTUS.
On-line gambling is illegal in most US States. Not sure how many US lawyers would have the necessary experience.
2) In the UK, we really know how to penny pinch because the NHS is always skint. Apparently.
They haven't, the 'next president' is ostensibly NOT on who will be the next president. It's on next projected president which is something completely different.
They're lucky it's not closer and Biden *touch wood* has stayed healthy through November so far.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-speedy-coronavirus-vaccine-approval-sparks-hope-and-questions/
...“the world is looking at the U.K.,” said microbiologist Ralf Rene Reinert, Regional Lead Medical and Scientific Affairs, at Pfizer Vaccines, inferring that since the U.K. has successfully used an EU loophole to approve this vaccine during an emergency, other countries might be thinking of doing the same. “I just got an email [about this],” he began to say, but stopped short of revealing which country it came from.
“It’s a risk-benefit decision. There are many deaths a day,” he said, noting Germany, where he lives, on Wednesday recorded its highest number of daily deaths...
The EMA does not assess any products itself, it outsources that to its Member States' regulatory authorities, and, in particular for vaccines, the MHRA. The MHRA is the biggest national regulatory agency in Europe. Since the EMA's move to Amsterdam, the MHRA doesn't perform this work for the EMA any more and hence performed the process including gaining the Emergency Use Authorisation (in this instance) for the UK only.
Any Member State could have applied for an EUA but none did. Nor did they make use of the rolling review which the MHRA did and which meant that at the end of the process they, the MHRA, could authorise the vaccine quickly. Other EU Member States are only now beginning the review process.
Is that "because of Brexit"? Not 100% sure it was. No Brexit = whole of Europe would have had early authorisation of the vaccine as they would have used the MHRA for EMA authorisation.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1203/1182088-brexit/
Incidentally, the article raises a question about live animal exports. Presumably these will be allowed from GB to NI, albeit with extra paperwork. And from NI to the Republic. And from the Republic to anywhere else in the EU. So the UK ban seems to have a massive hole in it, which could make things worse. What a mind-boggling shambles this all is.
Biden increased Clinton's lead over Trump by 2.2%. The key states PA, NV, WI all increased by less than this which is a relative rightward shift to the nation.
MI, NE-2, GA, AZ however all swung left by > 3.0% - if you assume these trends continue they push past Wisconsin for tipping point state so the electoral bias of 3.8% so far might be a high tide mark for the GOP.
If PA, NV, WI are lost it is precisely 270 ECVs with Arizona likely as the tipping point state.
Roads round here are not gritted.I really hope we don’t get snowed in. A barn halfway up a lonely hillside is no place to be trapped.
I get the flu jab. I really hope I am in group 6 for the covid vaccine. I have asthma and bronchiectasis and protein factor c deficiency so if I get this blasted disease my chances are not good.
I would mention today's thread header as an example, but naturally my legendary modesty prevents me.
If the lawyers say no, since the matter is before the courts still, then that's the answer.
As for being snowed in - as long as you have the things you need with you, then it should be a great experience - whether it is tea, coffee, whisky, good books, watching the tellybox, writing something, learning something, practising something you have learned or are learning or even, dare I say it, reading and contributing to PB.
They mislead people in order to make more money. They did just the same with Brexit-related bets a year ago.
I know that was Essex as opposed to Cumbria, but live in hope!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_passport
Spoiler: It's dark blue
"But that's why it was not just highly unhelpful, but actively dangerous, for Hancock and Rees-Mogg to use the vaccine to advance a party political argument. No political party or proposition in the democratic world has ever recieved the level of support or buy-in you would need to achieve longterm eradication of a disease via vaccination. When vaccines become a partisan argument they lose support rather than gain them.
By trying to fold vaccines into an argument for Brexit, even if the Conservatives are winning over Leave voters, they are going to strengthen and deepen anti-vaccination sentiments among Remain voters."
The blame for this lies with Mr Barnier and Mr Macron, between the two of them they rejected the UK offer.
Now read Table 3 para 1 in the covid book: Individuals with a severe lung condition, including those with asthma that requires continuous or repeated use of systemic steroids or with previous exacerbations requiring hospital admission
It is a copy paste job. If you get the flu jab for asthma, by the green book you will get the covid jab. @Cyclefree.
I'm not usually one to get annoyed about this, but it's really important. DO NOT POST COMMENTS LIKE THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE DOCUMENT. I cannot be clearer. It causes undue distress to people who might suddenly feel that they aren't being covered when the entire table is almost a complete copy and paste with a few ADDITIONS to the covid book.
Nuff said.
Depends on whether you think competition is good or not.
I have been stuck in this bloody barn for 10 months now. All the things you describe lost their appeal long ago ......
He explained it very clearly.
One more time - the EMA doesn't do any assessing. It outsources it to national agencies. For vaccines this has been the MHRA. Since the EMA's move to NL, the MHRA hasn't done this for the EMA and hence did it for themselves (ie us).
The reason we are ahead of the game is because we used the "rolling review" which allowed us to assess the trials on an ongoing basis rather than have all the paperwork dumped on us once the trials had been completed. Which latter is what has happened to the EMA. Hence the delay vs us because we were assessing as the trial was proceding.
So all we can say is that our leaving the EU has resulted in the EU not getting the vaccine as quickly as it would have had we still been a member.
I need a walk.
I am going out now.
I may be gone for some time.
* Naturally I exclude Corbyns from that definition
That's the great Brexit freedom; we can only be a truly nimble nation if we don't consider the effects of our actions on others. It's the tension between "Britain is a sovereign island" and "No man is an island". And we all have to work through that tension in our lifetimes, and most of us come down on Donne's side of the argument.
While this decision is not directly the result of Brexit, it does illustrate the potential advantages of regulatory competition - something the EU seems determined to thwart.
In the EU case, pooling resources (national regulatory bodies) and the EMA allocating to the most able one in each particular instance seems to be very sensible.
But obviously for Brexiters not only must Britain win, the EU must lose.
'At least then we shall further confirmation that 14 Dec is the latest settlement date.'
Thanks for digging out that press release. It saved me time. Note however that the committment to the Dec 14th date remains equivocal. So we still don't know for sure when they are going to settle, or indeed on what basis. The reference to '...a conclusive outcome before that date' is likewise inconclusive. We would all expect from that that they are referring to a Trump concession but who knows? What if Biden dropped dead? Would that be a 'conclusive outcome'? What if Civil War breaks out and Trump stages a coup?
Ok, we're in the realm of fantasy here but so are some of those who can't see that Betfair have moved the goalposts, and have got themselves in a right pickle as a result.
Am I reading it incorrectly?
Worse than the blitz? Doubt it.
Maybe at some point in the future they might find it a good idea to have the same colour passports as the rest of the EU, who knows.
Anyway, his original point is both ridiculous and false. Or is it supposed to be satire?
More broadly, the EU is not trying to stop the UK competing with it on regulation. It is just saying that if that is what the UK wants to do it will get less access to the Single Market. That is exactly what competition looks like, isn't it?
If the MHRA can do the same job as the EMA, just faster, in the middle of a pandemic, isn't that a good thing?
But I've no idea if the French or German or Spanish regulatory bodies take the lead on other things which require approval.
Gut feel says they probably do. Pooled resources sounds sensible to me.
Your approach seems to countenance the possibility of a succession of projected winners, quite possibly changing over time as time passes and events unfold. There is no finality. It is as absurd as it is impractical.
The figures, published by the Department of Health and Social Care, show that 110,620 people tested positive for coronavirus in the week ending 25 November, a decrease of 28% compared with the previous week. These figures indicate that the spread of the virus is decreasing significantly, as the week before showed a decrease of 8.7% in terms of positive coronavirus tests.
It looks like there certainly will be a duplication of work as one national agency or several will now have to do the assessment work. And the conclusions of that assessment might reflect or disagree with that of the MHRA (I know where my money is but it's possible).