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.
The ONS survey is going to be very interesting tomorrow as we'll get final data for the week.up to the 21st and advanced data for the week up to the 28th, by then the England lockdown should be showing drops in all age groups other than school age children. The data for Wales is also going to be quite interesting too and may show what England has got coming over the next couple of weeks.
LONDON (Reuters) - Activity in Britain’s services sector fell less than expected in November, as a four-week partial lockdown in England had a smaller impact on firms than measures earlier in the year, and businesses grew more optimistic about the outlook for 2021.
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.
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
I mean thinking about it, there is a bonkers element of trying out a brand new anything but in particular medicine on people who are the most very vulnerable.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Is a 'wet weather bike' what the rest of us call a 'car'?
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.
No there is finality as I have said many times - the day of the Electoral College vote. That is the final finishing post: who is the projected Electoral College winner, excluding faithless electors etc, on the day the Electoral College is held.
Indeed the rules explicitly state what happens next if there is no Electoral College majority and puts another deadline further into the future then.
Just because you want media projections to be deemed official and unambiguous doesn't make them so, the law in the United States gives provision for legal challenges to be filed upto the 8th December 2020. That is not indefinitely, it is a mere five days from today. The Electoral College vote itself is 14 December 2020, that is again not indefinitely it is a mere eleven days from today.
We haven't reached the Electoral College yet. All ambiguity must be gone under the law by that date and the rules gave provision for that. The rules also give Betfair the right to settle sooner if there is no ambiguity as is the case in 44 states, the fact they have done so there does not prejudice the fact their rules says they can wait for the official results if there is any ambiguity.
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.
The next President could still be Pence.
The whole "resign for a pardon" issue would put Betfair up shit creek.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
What is a "wet weather bike"?
Any bike in the UK must be assumed to be ridden in the rain. Otherwise you ride it 1 day a year....
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.
How disappointing. They must hate the idea of such a stellar Boris success story.
I listened to yesterday's briefing on the vaccine approval, and the funny thing is that Boris didn't take any personal credit for it. Nor did Boris link the approval to Brexit, in fact he specifically said that the development of the vaccine was an international effort. The only British organisations he thanked were the vaccine taskforce, and the NHS and military who will be involved in distributing it.
For once, and to his credit, Boris got the tone just right. I think like most people he's simply relieved that there is a vaccine ready to use now.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
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.
Interesting to see the numbers. Looks like I am approximately number 33 million in the queue.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
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.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
I swap my tyres from semi-slicks to winter ones designed for damp surfaces about now.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
So how do you know your bike isn't then?
I mean it's got a huge umbrella which comes up from behind the seat and covers the whole thing but that can't be it can it?
The Stephen Bush reference earlier sent me down a New Statesman rabbithole, and I found this about Anthony Steen MP and the 87k of public money he spent on his garden.
"Then, one afternoon in May 2009, Wollaston was driving when she heard Anthony Steen, the MP for Totnes, telling the World at One why he had spent more than £87,000 of taxpayers’ money on the garden of his second home. “I’ve got a very, very large house,” explained Steen. “Some people say it looks like Balmoral… it does me nicely.” As Steen asked “what right” a “jealous” public had to know what he’d spent their money on, Wollaston sensed the political landscape changing quickly."
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.
No there is finality as I have said many times - the day of the Electoral College vote. That is the final finishing post: who is the projected Electoral College winner, excluding faithless electors etc, on the day the Electoral College is held.
Indeed the rules explicitly state what happens next if there is no Electoral College majority and puts another deadline further into the future then.
Just because you want media projections to be deemed official and unambiguous doesn't make them so, the law in the United States gives provision for legal challenges to be filed upto the 8th December 2020. That is not indefinitely, it is a mere five days from today. The Electoral College vote itself is 14 December 2020, that is again not indefinitely it is a mere eleven days from today.
We haven't reached the Electoral College yet. All ambiguity must be gone under the law by that date and the rules gave provision for that.
Yes, I know you have said it many time, Philip but that does not in itself make it right! As you conceive the matter, there certainly is finality. It becomes final when PT says it is. I'm afraid the punters around here need something a little more objective than that.
Betfair's original rules were not perfect in that respect, but were good enough for them to start paying out and as far as I am aware they faced no objections from the punters, who I am sure generally concurred with their understanding and practice of what was meant by 'projected Electoral votes'. The problem arose when Betfair stopped doing so, and began to introduce extraneous factors not in the original rules.
As for your comments on the Law, they would have some validity if Betfair had introduced the Law etc into its rules. It could have done so. It didn't, so all the Court stuff is irrelevant. All that matters is 'the projected Electoral vote' and what that means.
Betfair could have clarified the phrase when setting up the market if it had wished, but they didn't. In fact they haven't done so since but have just alluded to Dec 14th as a likely (but by no means certain) settlement date. As a result, nobody really knows where they are, nor will they ever as long as settlement remains in the hands of a capricious market maker.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
I swap my tyres from semi-slicks to winter ones designed for damp surfaces about now.
No idea about a wet weather bike, mind.
Well that sounds like you're halfway there. Just change the chassis for a wet weather one and you're done.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
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.
No there is finality as I have said many times - the day of the Electoral College vote. That is the final finishing post: who is the projected Electoral College winner, excluding faithless electors etc, on the day the Electoral College is held.
Indeed the rules explicitly state what happens next if there is no Electoral College majority and puts another deadline further into the future then.
Just because you want media projections to be deemed official and unambiguous doesn't make them so, the law in the United States gives provision for legal challenges to be filed upto the 8th December 2020. That is not indefinitely, it is a mere five days from today. The Electoral College vote itself is 14 December 2020, that is again not indefinitely it is a mere eleven days from today.
We haven't reached the Electoral College yet. All ambiguity must be gone under the law by that date and the rules gave provision for that.
Yes, I know you have said it many time, Philip but that does not in itself make it right! As you conceive the matter, there certainly is finality. It becomes final when PT says it is. I'm afraid the punters around here need something a little more objective than that.
Betfair's original rules were not perfect in that respect, but were good enough for them to start paying out and as far as I am aware they faced no objections from the punters, who I am sure generally concurred with their understanding and practice of what was meant by 'projected Electoral votes'. The problem arose when Betfair stopped doing so, and began to introduce extraneous factors not in the original rules.
As for your comments on the Law, they would have some validity if Betfair had introduced the Law etc into its rules. It could have done so. It didn't, so all the Court stuff is irrelevant. All that matters is 'the projected Electoral vote' and what that means.
Betfair could have clarified the phrase when setting up the market if it had wished, but they didn't. In fact they haven't done so since but have just alluded to Dec 14th as a likely (but by no means certain) settlement date. As a result, nobody really knows where they are, nor will they ever as long as settlement remains in the hands of a capricious market maker.
You saying something hundreds of times over and over again doesn't make it any more true than PT saying something over and over. You both have reasonable opinions on this. Betfairs view seems closer to PTs as far as I can tell and its time to accept that.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Get used to it. Britain will be doing everything wrong from now on in the eyes of some. Thankfully though their fallacious reasoning won't actually stop us making progress.
Captain Oates is credited with it in Scott's diary, but not Edward Wilson's.
Point of trivia. The expedition club at my Medical School was named for Edward Wilson, the doctor on Scott's expedition, in a rather macabre bit of humour.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
Perhaps you need to visit the Aldi cycling outfit special buy when it arrives.
Any normally sized person is an XXXXXXXXXXXXXXL in cycling terms.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
Perhaps you need to visit the Aldi cycling outfit special buy when it arrives.
Any normally sized person is an XXXXXXXXXXXXXXL in cycling terms.
I notice that those with a BMI at or over 40 will be on the covid 19 priority list.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
Mudguards, not as shiny as the summer road bike, fatter tyres, or just a mountain bike. Otherwise you spend more time cleaning than riding. Of course one always must be thinking of buying another bike - it is the rules.
Alternatively, one mounted on rollers in the garage (if you panic bought some at the beginning of the pandemic) and an old TV screen to show your training course of choice.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
Mudguards, not as shiny as the summer road bike, fatter tyres, or just a mountain bike. Otherwise you spend more time cleaning than riding. One always must be thinking of buying another one - it is the rules.
Alternatively, one mounted on rollers in the garage (if you panic bought some at the beginning of the pandemic) and an old TV screen to show your training course of choice.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Get used to it. Britain will be doing everything wrong from now on in the eyes of some. Thankfully though their fallacious reasoning won't actually stop us making progress.
Nobody loves us everybody hates us....the Millwall of the world. A solid 13th in the Championship. Seen better days.....better get used to it
The bias towards the Republicans in the US electoral college continues to grow in step with Biden's growing margin in the popular vote.
Biden's overall lead in the popular vote is now up to 4.4% (51.3% v 46.9%). With Biden having carried the tipping point state of Wisconsin by only 0.6%, that means that on a uniform swing away from the result, Biden would have had to have carried the popular vote by at least 3.8% to prevail in the electoral college. That margin of bias will increase further as the results outstanding seem to be from New York - 4% looks in range.
So in summary, Republicans have strong biases in their favour in every aspect of US government: the presidential electoral college, the Senate (due to small rural states), the House of Representatives (due to gerrymandering of congressional boundaries at state level) and the Supreme Court (as a consequence of their Senate bias).
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Get used to it. Britain will be doing everything wrong from now on in the eyes of some. Thankfully though their fallacious reasoning won't actually stop us making progress.
Only until Starmer or whoever follows him becomes PM, then suddenly all of those same people working in the same jobs doing the same work as before will be cast as "progressive Britain" leading the way or something like that.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
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
Or it might be that having an integrated national health service will rather better monitor the occurrence of any such adverse effects than the rather more 'granular' continental health services ?
As far as short to medium term side effects are concerned, the risk/benefit ratio is very clear indeed, and argues conclusively for the UK version of accelerated approval.
Potential longer term adverse events are simply an unknown quantity (though as far as mRNA vaccines in general are concerned, have not shown up in previous trials), and will remain so well beyond the point at which either the US or EU approve the vaccine.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
Mudguards, not as shiny as the summer road bike, fatter tyres, or just a mountain bike. Otherwise you spend more time cleaning than riding. Of course one always must be thinking of buying another bike - it is the rules.
Alternatively, one mounted on rollers in the garage (if you panic bought some at the beginning of the pandemic) and an old TV screen to show your training course of choice.
A cyclocross bike is the best middle ground for British roads and conditions in my opinion.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Your last two sentences rather contradict each other!
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
Talking of the weather and lockdown and getting out, I'm waiting for it to stop raining so I can get out on a bike ride and the effing rain is just not stopping.
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Seems like a pretty big oversight given British weather.
If you think about it, since lockdown I have cycled just about every day and there must have been three or four days only when it's been raining. But yes, winter is coming.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
Mudguards, not as shiny as the summer road bike, fatter tyres, or just a mountain bike. Otherwise you spend more time cleaning than riding. Of course one always must be thinking of buying another bike - it is the rules.
Alternatively, one mounted on rollers in the garage (if you panic bought some at the beginning of the pandemic) and an old TV screen to show your training course of choice.
A cyclocross bike is the best middle ground for British roads and conditions in my opinion.
Yes. Essentially the same as an old touring bike once you've put mudguards on it.
You also don't look as daft doing 13mph on one as you do on a go-faster carbon race machine.
Captain Oates is credited with it in Scott's diary, but not Edward Wilson's.
Point of trivia. The expedition club at my Medical School was named for Edward Wilson, the doctor on Scott's expedition, in a rather macabre bit of humour.
Yes, I got Cyclefree's reference to Oates. I was just expressing my doubts that Scott's reply to Oates was, "Take care and enjoy the fresh air." :-)
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Your last two sentences rather contradict each other!
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
I was under the impression that Pfizer had now completed their trial, and had submitted those final numbers to the MHRA, which was why they were so confident they could get a speedy authorisation.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Your last two sentences rather contradict each other!
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
Aiui the same data was provided to the MHRA as well, just faster because of the rolling review. The FDA approval is expected within a few days, there's not going to much additional infection/efficacy data from Tuesday to their approval anyway. I think the MHRA have been very highly organised in this and that isn't to be underestimated, especially wrt public sector organisations.
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.
Give up, Peter. Philip has been defending the indefensible for so long on this particular issue that the argument will go nowhere however long you persist. I think most of us with Exchange bets outstanding greatly appreciate your efforts.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Your last two sentences rather contradict each other!
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
I was under the impression that Pfizer had now completed their trial, and had submitted those final numbers to the MHRA, which was why they were so confident they could get a speedy authorisation.
Not really a fixed endpoint, but enough positive cases in the cohort to meet approved (pre-set) statistical confidence levels. They can keep monitoring as long as they want - this will help with how long protection is afforded.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Your last two sentences rather contradict each other!
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
I was under the impression that Pfizer had now completed their trial, and had submitted those final numbers to the MHRA, which was why they were so confident they could get a speedy authorisation.
Yes, that is what I've read elsewhere too. The "additional data" has already been provided to all regulators, the MHRA have just worked through it very quickly because they have been very organised.
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.
No there is finality as I have said many times - the day of the Electoral College vote. That is the final finishing post: who is the projected Electoral College winner, excluding faithless electors etc, on the day the Electoral College is held.
Indeed the rules explicitly state what happens next if there is no Electoral College majority and puts another deadline further into the future then.
Just because you want media projections to be deemed official and unambiguous doesn't make them so, the law in the United States gives provision for legal challenges to be filed upto the 8th December 2020. That is not indefinitely, it is a mere five days from today. The Electoral College vote itself is 14 December 2020, that is again not indefinitely it is a mere eleven days from today.
We haven't reached the Electoral College yet. All ambiguity must be gone under the law by that date and the rules gave provision for that.
Yes, I know you have said it many time, Philip but that does not in itself make it right! As you conceive the matter, there certainly is finality. It becomes final when PT says it is. I'm afraid the punters around here need something a little more objective than that.
Betfair's original rules were not perfect in that respect, but were good enough for them to start paying out and as far as I am aware they faced no objections from the punters, who I am sure generally concurred with their understanding and practice of what was meant by 'projected Electoral votes'. The problem arose when Betfair stopped doing so, and began to introduce extraneous factors not in the original rules.
As for your comments on the Law, they would have some validity if Betfair had introduced the Law etc into its rules. It could have done so. It didn't, so all the Court stuff is irrelevant. All that matters is 'the projected Electoral vote' and what that means.
Betfair could have clarified the phrase when setting up the market if it had wished, but they didn't. In fact they haven't done so since but have just alluded to Dec 14th as a likely (but by no means certain) settlement date. As a result, nobody really knows where they are, nor will they ever as long as settlement remains in the hands of a capricious market maker.
You saying something hundreds of times over and over again doesn't make it any more true than PT saying something over and over. You both have reasonable opinions on this. Betfairs view seems closer to PTs as far as I can tell and its time to accept that.
I'm not as pissed off as Peter about it but I agree with him that Betfair - and SPIN btw who have suspended rather than settled - have drifted into a logic free zone now. I suppose they will settle on 14 Dec. If they don't, with all results certified and the EC having voted for Biden as the winner, with nothing but the losing incumbent's dark mutterings saying otherwise, then they will have become de facto a part of Trump's black propaganda effort, which imo would not be a good look at all.
Some 57,184 out of the 63,852 Covid deaths so far have been to over-65s; the vast majority of the under-65s who died suffered from severe underlying health conditions. There will no longer be any worthwhile case for lockdowns, restrictions and social distancing of any kind once everybody in those two groups who wants a vaccine has been treated: in fact, that should be the trigger for Covid Liberation Day.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Your last two sentences rather contradict each other!
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
I was under the impression that Pfizer had now completed their trial, and had submitted those final numbers to the MHRA, which was why they were so confident they could get a speedy authorisation.
The trial is still scheduled to last two years (though there are likely to be problems with deciding what to do with the placebo group). What they've presented is an interim analysis. But you're correct in thinking they've completed the submission.
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
I mean thinking about it, there is a bonkers element of trying out a brand new anything but in particular medicine on people who are the most very vulnerable.
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.
Some 57,184 out of the 63,852 Covid deaths so far have been to over-65s; the vast majority of the under-65s who died suffered from severe underlying health conditions. There will no longer be any worthwhile case for lockdowns, restrictions and social distancing of any kind once everybody in those two groups who wants a vaccine has been treated: in fact, that should be the trigger for Covid Liberation Day.
telegraph
Agreed. We do not need an elimination of risk. We need a significant rebalancing of risk. Once those who are known to be vulnerable have been immunised the rest of us should be allowed to get on with it.
Some 57,184 out of the 63,852 Covid deaths so far have been to over-65s; the vast majority of the under-65s who died suffered from severe underlying health conditions. There will no longer be any worthwhile case for lockdowns, restrictions and social distancing of any kind once everybody in those two groups who wants a vaccine has been treated: in fact, that should be the trigger for Covid Liberation Day.
telegraph
I agree govt lockdown measures should be lifted at that stage, although not sure what levels of personal risk one should take in the few months between the lifting and getting a vaccine if it happened.
Id expect though that the govt will take a more risk averse* view and still keep a looser level of restriction in place for that period until everyone has been vaccinated so it might not be a question that needs an answer.
*risk averse in covid terms, there are of course plenty of other competing risks.
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.
No there is finality as I have said many times - the day of the Electoral College vote. That is the final finishing post: who is the projected Electoral College winner, excluding faithless electors etc, on the day the Electoral College is held.
Indeed the rules explicitly state what happens next if there is no Electoral College majority and puts another deadline further into the future then.
Just because you want media projections to be deemed official and unambiguous doesn't make them so, the law in the United States gives provision for legal challenges to be filed upto the 8th December 2020. That is not indefinitely, it is a mere five days from today. The Electoral College vote itself is 14 December 2020, that is again not indefinitely it is a mere eleven days from today.
We haven't reached the Electoral College yet. All ambiguity must be gone under the law by that date and the rules gave provision for that.
Yes, I know you have said it many time, Philip but that does not in itself make it right! As you conceive the matter, there certainly is finality. It becomes final when PT says it is. I'm afraid the punters around here need something a little more objective than that.
Betfair's original rules were not perfect in that respect, but were good enough for them to start paying out and as far as I am aware they faced no objections from the punters, who I am sure generally concurred with their understanding and practice of what was meant by 'projected Electoral votes'. The problem arose when Betfair stopped doing so, and began to introduce extraneous factors not in the original rules.
As for your comments on the Law, they would have some validity if Betfair had introduced the Law etc into its rules. It could have done so. It didn't, so all the Court stuff is irrelevant. All that matters is 'the projected Electoral vote' and what that means.
Betfair could have clarified the phrase when setting up the market if it had wished, but they didn't. In fact they haven't done so since but have just alluded to Dec 14th as a likely (but by no means certain) settlement date. As a result, nobody really knows where they are, nor will they ever as long as settlement remains in the hands of a capricious market maker.
You saying something hundreds of times over and over again doesn't make it any more true than PT saying something over and over. You both have reasonable opinions on this. Betfairs view seems closer to PTs as far as I can tell and its time to accept that.
I'm not as pissed off as Peter about it but I agree with him that Betfair - and SPIN btw who have suspended rather than settled - have drifted into a logic free zone now. I suppose they will settle on 14 Dec. If they don't, with all results certified and the EC having voted for Biden as the winner, with nothing but the losing incumbent's dark mutterings saying otherwise, then they will have become de facto a part of Trump's black propaganda effort, which imo would not be a good look at all.
Agreed completely on that last point. 14 Dec is the last logical date for the ECV issues to be settled.
Much better response to Pike’s idiocy than from the EMA or several European politicians (and surprisingly Fauci) yesterday who simply provided anti-vaxxers with ammunition
It is critically important to the future of Boris Johnson the best interests of the country that as many people as possible travel home for Christmas to give Granny a lethal dose of Covid a hug.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Your last two sentences rather contradict each other!
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
I was under the impression that Pfizer had now completed their trial, and had submitted those final numbers to the MHRA, which was why they were so confident they could get a speedy authorisation.
Why do you stop the science just because you have got permission to vaccinate the general public? There is a great wealth of information in those trial cohorts which are easy to access and follow up.
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
I mean thinking about it, there is a bonkers element of trying out a brand new anything but in particular medicine on people who are the most very vulnerable.
But given it's the long term risks of a new vaccine that are rationally of most concern - since this can't be tested in the initial short trials - I suppose you could make the opposite case too. Because if you are 92 you will probably worry less about this aspect than if you are 42.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Your last two sentences rather contradict each other!
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
I was under the impression that Pfizer had now completed their trial, and had submitted those final numbers to the MHRA, which was why they were so confident they could get a speedy authorisation.
Yes, that is what I've read elsewhere too. The "additional data" has already been provided to all regulators, the MHRA have just worked through it very quickly because they have been very organised.
No, this is the breakpoint for evidence of efficacy, the trial is a 2 year one according to their protocol.
I think they are awaiting evidence of efficacy in different subgroups, which is important in terms of prioritisation, and assessing relative risk.
I am not a vaccine sceptic, and will be one of the initial guinea pigs when rolled out. There are risks involved, but probably less than the virus itself.
FYI my university has, from this week, begun offering COVID tests in the sports centre with a result in 3 hours. The idea is that students can test themselves, as many times as necessary, so they can be pretty sure it is safe to return home.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Get used to it. Britain will be doing everything wrong from now on in the eyes of some. Thankfully though their fallacious reasoning won't actually stop us making progress.
Nobody loves us everybody hates us....the Millwall of the world. A solid 13th in the Championship. Seen better days.....better get used to it
Look at our Eurovision scores to see how long we have been reviled across Eurovision land - it really took hold under Blair.
Doesn't mean we haven't been a world leader in music for decades.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Get used to it. Britain will be doing everything wrong from now on in the eyes of some. Thankfully though their fallacious reasoning won't actually stop us making progress.
Nobody loves us everybody hates us....the Millwall of the world. A solid 13th in the Championship. Seen better days.....better get used to it
Look at our Eurovision scores to see how long we have been reviled across Eurovision land - it really took hold under Blair.
Doesn't mean we haven't been a world leader in music for decades.
Yep, when assessing the costs and casualties of the Iraq War this one - our chances in Eurovision - is sometimes overlooked.
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.
The ONS survey is going to be very interesting tomorrow as we'll get final data for the week.up to the 21st and advanced data for the week up to the 28th, by then the England lockdown should be showing drops in all age groups other than school age children. The data for Wales is also going to be quite interesting too and may show what England has got coming over the next couple of weeks.
Let's hope that the tiers will be enough to at least keep cases flat in England. They seem to work for Scotland.
Wales with 1473 cases reported today, up from 1251 last Wednesday. Still heading the wrong way quite quickly:
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Your last two sentences rather contradict each other!
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
I was under the impression that Pfizer had now completed their trial, and had submitted those final numbers to the MHRA, which was why they were so confident they could get a speedy authorisation.
Yes, that is what I've read elsewhere too. The "additional data" has already been provided to all regulators, the MHRA have just worked through it very quickly because they have been very organised.
No, this is the breakpoint for evidence of efficacy, the trial is a 2 year one according to their protocol.
I think they are awaiting evidence of efficacy in different subgroups, which is important in terms of prioritisation, and assessing relative risk.
I am not a vaccine sceptic, and will be one of the initial guinea pigs when rolled out. There are risks involved, but probably less than the virus itself.
Any idea what they might do with the placebo group ? When they signed up for the trial, it was on the basis that (if in the placebo group) they would not receive the vaccine for some considerable time. That's probably not going to be a realistic condition for the full two years.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Get used to it. Britain will be doing everything wrong from now on in the eyes of some. Thankfully though their fallacious reasoning won't actually stop us making progress.
Nobody loves us everybody hates us....the Millwall of the world. A solid 13th in the Championship. Seen better days.....better get used to it
Look at our Eurovision scores to see how long we have been reviled across Eurovision land - it really took hold under Blair.
Doesn't mean we haven't been a world leader in music for decades.
Another more general point is that it's highly irresponsible for Fauci and European politicians to be undermining the UK approval of the same bloody vaccine they will inevitably approve in days (FDA) or weeks (EU). All of this is just feeding the anti-vaxxer cycle, now you have the hugely respected Fauci being quotable as saying it's been rushed to approval days before the expected FDA approval and the EU implying the MHRA may have taken shortcuts weeks before their expected approval of the same vaccine.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
Your last two sentences rather contradict each other!
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
I was under the impression that Pfizer had now completed their trial, and had submitted those final numbers to the MHRA, which was why they were so confident they could get a speedy authorisation.
Yes, that is what I've read elsewhere too. The "additional data" has already been provided to all regulators, the MHRA have just worked through it very quickly because they have been very organised.
No, this is the breakpoint for evidence of efficacy, the trial is a 2 year one according to their protocol.
I think they are awaiting evidence of efficacy in different subgroups, which is important in terms of prioritisation, and assessing relative risk.
I am not a vaccine sceptic, and will be one of the initial guinea pigs when rolled out. There are risks involved, but probably less than the virus itself.
Any idea what they might do with the placebo group ? When they signed up for the trial, it was on the basis that (if in the placebo group) they would not receive the vaccine for some considerable time. That's probably not going to be a realistic condition for the full two years.
Interesting. If they are mostly fit and healthy, and 95 % of the population gets the jab, smashing the incidence rate to virtually nothing, you could justify not giving it to them. But then an idiot starts on about vaccine passports...
FYI my university has, from this week, begun offering COVID tests in the sports centre with a result in 3 hours. The idea is that students can test themselves, as many times as necessary, so they can be pretty sure it is safe to return home.
Anyone know whether those sorts of tests will be incorporated directly into the daily test and case numbers? Or does anyone with a positive test then need to take a "proper" test that goes into the statistics?
Some 57,184 out of the 63,852 Covid deaths so far have been to over-65s; the vast majority of the under-65s who died suffered from severe underlying health conditions. There will no longer be any worthwhile case for lockdowns, restrictions and social distancing of any kind once everybody in those two groups who wants a vaccine has been treated: in fact, that should be the trigger for Covid Liberation Day.
telegraph
I agree govt lockdown measures should be lifted at that stage, although not sure what levels of personal risk one should take in the few months between the lifting and getting a vaccine if it happened.
Id expect though that the govt will take a more risk averse* view and still keep a looser level of restriction in place for that period until everyone has been vaccinated so it might not be a question that needs an answer.
*risk averse in covid terms, there are of course plenty of other competing risks.
We're unlikely to get everyone vaccinated though? I'd imagine that some of the people in risk groups are exactly the people who we can't, in all conscience, vaccinate, and who would rely on the rest of us giving herd immunity.
When I worked in the oil business, years back, it was standard procedure to so a hi-res sonar survey of the sea floor before putting up rigs etc. Occasionally they found something either interesting or potentially interesting in terms of explosives. Which was generally made boring by blowing it up.
You’d expect the Thanksgiving cases to be coming through from now, yet the case line appears to have levelled off?
US figures are erratic and generally show a definite 'weekend effect'. The figures around Thanksgiving were likewise affected but the overall trend is definitely up. I suppose a Thanksgiving spike can be expected soon.
Trump is now calling for a re run of the November election. If Flynn got his way the USA is heading into a very dark place.
US Elections are protected by the constitution. There's no way on God's green earth any member of SCOTUS or the top brass of the military (See Milley's speech) would go along with that (Which is what matters in this scenario). I think even Pence at that point tells Donald 'enough'.
You’d expect the Thanksgiving cases to be coming through from now, yet the case line appears to have levelled off?
US figures are erratic and generally show a definite 'weekend effect'. The figures around Thanksgiving were likewise affected but the overall trend is definitely up. I suppose a Thanksgiving spike can be expected soon.
Tests in the next few days, hospitalisations by mid-month and deaths before Christmas- maybe that will provide food for thought for those planning Christmas get together.
Trump is now calling for a re run of the November election. If Flynn got his way the USA is heading into a very dark place.
US Elections are protected by the constitution. There's no way on God's green earth any member of SCOTUS or the top brass of the military (See Milley's speech) would go along with that (Which is what matters in this scenario). I think even Pence at that point tells Donald 'enough'.
He probably got the idea from Starmer.
Thank God we live in a civilised country where noone important would ever call for a second vote just because they were squarely beaten in the first.
You’d expect the Thanksgiving cases to be coming through from now, yet the case line appears to have levelled off?
US figures are erratic and generally show a definite 'weekend effect'. The figures around Thanksgiving were likewise affected but the overall trend is definitely up. I suppose a Thanksgiving spike can be expected soon.
Tests in the next few days, hospitalisations by mid-month and deaths before Christmas- maybe that will provide food for thought for those planning Christmas get together.
There were many last month predicting over 3000 deaths per day, just based on the case numbers; that has been borne out. It will get worse before it gets better.
I note the Mayor has locked down LA, as far as he is able to.
Trump is now calling for a re run of the November election. If Flynn got his way the USA is heading into a very dark place.
US Elections are protected by the constitution. There's no way on God's green earth any member of SCOTUS or the top brass of the military (See Milley's speech) would go along with that (Which is what matters in this scenario). I think even Pence at that point tells Donald 'enough'.
He probably got the idea from Starmer.
Thank God we live in a civilised country where noone important would ever call for a second vote just because they were squarely beaten in the first.
I'd be ok with another EU referendum now (Though I don't think there is appetitie for it), and probably vote the same way as before (remain). To try and have one before the initial result was implemented (leaving the EU), I agree was antidemocratic nonsense.
Comments
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/christmas-travel-measures-to-help-passengers-plan-their-journey-and-travel-safely
Basically roadworks and rail engineering cancelled over Christmas.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-pmi/uk-services-activity-drops-less-than-feared-in-second-lockdown-pmi-idUKKBN28D15Y
Entertaining article by Theodore Dalrymple.
"The Age of Cant
These days, you must hold the right opinions and express none of the wrong ones—or else.
Theodore Dalrymple"
https://www.city-journal.org/the-age-of-cant
Did my early one in the pouring rain which wasn't the most fun I've had plus kit still damp.
Plus I forgot to buy a wet weather bike so I'm doubly screwed.
Indeed the rules explicitly state what happens next if there is no Electoral College majority and puts another deadline further into the future then.
Just because you want media projections to be deemed official and unambiguous doesn't make them so, the law in the United States gives provision for legal challenges to be filed upto the 8th December 2020. That is not indefinitely, it is a mere five days from today. The Electoral College vote itself is 14 December 2020, that is again not indefinitely it is a mere eleven days from today.
We haven't reached the Electoral College yet. All ambiguity must be gone under the law by that date and the rules gave provision for that. The rules also give Betfair the right to settle sooner if there is no ambiguity as is the case in 44 states, the fact they have done so there does not prejudice the fact their rules says they can wait for the official results if there is any ambiguity.
Any bike in the UK must be assumed to be ridden in the rain. Otherwise you ride it 1 day a year....
For once, and to his credit, Boris got the tone just right. I think like most people he's simply relieved that there is a vaccine ready to use now.
I'm not sure I know what a wet weather bike is, that said.
Even on here we've seen normally smart people doubt the credibility of the MHRA despite the EMA previously relying on exactly the same MHRA for decades.
I said yesterday that politicising the vaccine approval by saying "because brexit" was a bad idea, I stand by that today and also extend my criticism to EU politicians seeking to undermine the MHRA because it has been better organised than the EU regulatory effort.
https://guernseypress.com/news/2020/12/03/jersey-shuts-pubs-until-new-year-due-to-covid/
No idea about a wet weather bike, mind.
Trump is now calling for a re run of the November election.
If Flynn got his way the USA is heading into a very dark place.
The Stephen Bush reference earlier sent me down a New Statesman rabbithole, and I found this about Anthony Steen MP and the 87k of public money he spent on his garden.
"Then, one afternoon in May 2009, Wollaston was driving when she heard Anthony Steen, the MP for Totnes, telling the World at One why he had spent more than £87,000 of taxpayers’ money on the garden of his second home. “I’ve got a very, very large house,” explained Steen. “Some people say it looks like Balmoral… it does me nicely.” As Steen asked “what right” a “jealous” public had to know what he’d spent their money on, Wollaston sensed the political landscape changing quickly."
Betfair's original rules were not perfect in that respect, but were good enough for them to start paying out and as far as I am aware they faced no objections from the punters, who I am sure generally concurred with their understanding and practice of what was meant by 'projected Electoral votes'. The problem arose when Betfair stopped doing so, and began to introduce extraneous factors not in the original rules.
As for your comments on the Law, they would have some validity if Betfair had introduced the Law etc into its rules. It could have done so. It didn't, so all the Court stuff is irrelevant. All that matters is 'the projected Electoral vote' and what that means.
Betfair could have clarified the phrase when setting up the market if it had wished, but they didn't. In fact they haven't done so since but have just alluded to Dec 14th as a likely (but by no means certain) settlement date. As a result, nobody really knows where they are, nor will they ever as long as settlement remains in the hands of a capricious market maker.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1334480428435206144?s=20
"But I must be allowed my snark. It's just a joke."
Thankfully though their fallacious reasoning won't actually stop us making progress.
Point of trivia. The expedition club at my Medical School was named for Edward Wilson, the doctor on Scott's expedition, in a rather macabre bit of humour.
Any normally sized person is an XXXXXXXXXXXXXXL in cycling terms.
The cartoon is about brexit, not vaccines.
Alternatively, one mounted on rollers in the garage (if you panic bought some at the beginning of the pandemic) and an old TV screen to show your training course of choice.
Biden's overall lead in the popular vote is now up to 4.4% (51.3% v 46.9%). With Biden having carried the tipping point state of Wisconsin by only 0.6%, that means that on a uniform swing away from the result, Biden would have had to have carried the popular vote by at least 3.8% to prevail in the electoral college. That margin of bias will increase further as the results outstanding seem to be from New York - 4% looks in range.
So in summary, Republicans have strong biases in their favour in every aspect of US government: the presidential electoral college, the Senate (due to small rural states), the House of Representatives (due to gerrymandering of congressional boundaries at state level) and the Supreme Court (as a consequence of their Senate bias).
As far as short to medium term side effects are concerned, the risk/benefit ratio is very clear indeed, and argues conclusively for the UK version of accelerated approval.
Potential longer term adverse events are simply an unknown quantity (though as far as mRNA vaccines in general are concerned, have not shown up in previous trials), and will remain so well beyond the point at which either the US or EU approve the vaccine.
I understand that the EMA (or its agents) and the FDA are looking at additional information.
As I pointed out earlier, the trials are not complete and we are using interim data on relatively small numbers. There is inevitably a degree of uncertainty remaining until the trials are complete. It is a philosophical point to decide at what level of risk to authorise a vaccine.
On the whole I think it right to authorise, and am going to be one of the guinea pigs in the first out of trial bit of surveillance, so literally have skin in the game.
You also don't look as daft doing 13mph on one as you do on a go-faster carbon race machine.
Give up, Peter.
Philip has been defending the indefensible for so long on this particular issue that the argument will go nowhere however long you persist.
I think most of us with Exchange bets outstanding greatly appreciate your efforts.
telegraph
What they've presented is an interim analysis. But you're correct in thinking they've completed the submission.
Good on otters though.
Id expect though that the govt will take a more risk averse* view and still keep a looser level of restriction in place for that period until everyone has been vaccinated so it might not be a question that needs an answer.
*risk averse in covid terms, there are of course plenty of other competing risks.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55167473
If you're not in the SE, you can catch it on iPlayer if you temporaily change "location" (small box top right of the screen) to "Southeasr".
he future of Boris Johnsonthe best interests of the country that as many people as possible travel home for Christmas to give Grannya lethal dose of Covida hug.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728
Certainly the Swiss are awaiting additional data, and also have purchased several million doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/incomplete-data-stalls-swiss-authorisation-of-covid-19-vaccines/46196598
I think they are awaiting evidence of efficacy in different subgroups, which is important in terms of prioritisation, and assessing relative risk.
I am not a vaccine sceptic, and will be one of the initial guinea pigs when rolled out. There are risks involved, but probably less than the virus itself.
Doesn't mean we haven't been a world leader in music for decades.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1334440993634967552?s=19
Wales with 1473 cases reported today, up from 1251 last Wednesday. Still heading the wrong way quite quickly:
When they signed up for the trial, it was on the basis that (if in the placebo group) they would not receive the vaccine for some considerable time. That's probably not going to be a realistic condition for the full two years.
Anyone know what the figures for this look like?
https://twitter.com/GrandPrixDiary/status/1334498189605531648
I think even Pence at that point tells Donald 'enough'.
Thank God we live in a civilised country where noone important would ever call for a second vote just because they were squarely beaten in the first.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/03/how-rich-and-privileged-can-skip-the-line-for-covid19-vaccines/
You know who you are.
It will get worse before it gets better.
I note the Mayor has locked down LA, as far as he is able to.