Interestingly if that report is accurate, it means it's exactly what @HYUFD said would happen.
No it isn't because HYUFD said we would cave on the Level Playing Field and agree to follow EU rules.
If there can be "systematic divergence" then we are not sticking to their rules and have regained control of our laws. That is not what Barnier has been demanding, but is what the Tory manifesto promised.
This idea anyone is buckling ignores any negotiations where a deal is being thrashed out
Maybe wait for the detail if and when a deal is struck
Eh? I'm not one of the few who's been saying for months that the EU would "buckle" because "we hold all the cards".
Frankly I'm happy that a deal looks closer today.
I have never believed we hold all the cards but equally neither does the EU
A deal needs compromise on both sides
Has anyone said the UK has no cards?
I can think of people, here and in the public space, who have said that the UK has all the cards, or pocket aces or whatever.
I can also think of people who think that the UK has fewer, and lower value, cards than the EU, and that we've not played them as smartly as we could have.
So the logic is that, when a deal comes (and it will have to, because the UK really needs a deal), it will be much closer to the EU's vision than the UK's. A body representing more people and more GDP is bound to have a dominant say in such a situation. From a purely democratic point of view, that's how it should be.
So yes- there will be compromises on both sides. But one side is going to continue to compromise much more than the other. From this starting point, I'm OK with that, because the alternative is even worse. But is the Conservative Party as currently configured going to be OK with that?
It has been a remarkable achievement to develop a new vaccine and take it from phase 1 to phase 3 trails in a year. In any other field of endeavour, there would be much more honouring and feting of the individuals and teams involved.
Science saves the day ... again.
If the BBC were seriously interested in its public service remit, it would be running SPOTY where S stands for science. If the press were seriously interested in science, they would be running profiles on how the superhuman job was done, instead of "We're the Best Boy band" and "Rating all Mariah Carey's greatest hits" from the rubbish in todays Guardian. We make all this fuss over e.g., Lewis Hamilton or Jordan Henderson, but the scientists have done a far, far greater thing.
I still think the job of persuading enough of the population to take the vaccine to achieve herd immunity is going to be more difficult than many people think. If the vaccine only confers temporary immunity, then take-up of the vaccine will need to be much larger than the simple estimate based on R.
My estimate is probably >90 per cent will be needed for herd immunity, if the vaccine immunity only last a year or so. This will be really tough to get to.
The likeliest outcome from here is SARS-CoV-2 will become endemic but at a lowish level, returning every Northern Hemisphere winter to take a further grim toll. So, vaccine certificates are also probably going to be inevitable -- if you wish to access certain services (not just Ryanair, probably also schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, restaurants, theatre).
This idea anyone is buckling ignores any negotiations where a deal is being thrashed out
Maybe wait for the detail if and when a deal is struck
Eh? I'm not one of the few who's been saying for months that the EU would "buckle" because "we hold all the cards".
Frankly I'm happy that a deal looks closer today.
I have never believed we hold all the cards but equally neither does the EU
A deal needs compromise on both sides
Has anyone said the UK has no cards?
I can think of people, here and in the public space, who have said that the UK has all the cards, or pocket aces or whatever.
I can also think of people who think that the UK has fewer, and lower value, cards than the EU, and that we've not played them as smartly as we could have.
So the logic is that, when a deal comes (and it will have to, because the UK really needs a deal), it will be much closer to the EU's vision than the UK's. A body representing more people and more GDP is bound to have a dominant say in such a situation. From a purely democratic point of view, that's how it should be.
So yes- there will be compromises on both sides. But one side is going to continue to compromise much more than the other. From this starting point, I'm OK with that, because the alternative is even worse. But is the Conservative Party as currently configured going to be OK with that?
Sure Tories are OK with it since its the EU that will be compromising more.
Its really simple. Divergence not possible = EU vision. Divergence possible = UK vision.
This idea anyone is buckling ignores any negotiations where a deal is being thrashed out
Maybe wait for the detail if and when a deal is struck
Eh? I'm not one of the few who's been saying for months that the EU would "buckle" because "we hold all the cards".
Frankly I'm happy that a deal looks closer today.
I have never believed we hold all the cards but equally neither does the EU
A deal needs compromise on both sides
Has anyone said the UK has no cards?
I can think of people, here and in the public space, who have said that the UK has all the cards, or pocket aces or whatever.
I can also think of people who think that the UK has fewer, and lower value, cards than the EU, and that we've not played them as smartly as we could have.
So the logic is that, when a deal comes (and it will have to, because the UK really needs a deal), it will be much closer to the EU's vision than the UK's. A body representing more people and more GDP is bound to have a dominant say in such a situation. From a purely democratic point of view, that's how it should be.
So yes- there will be compromises on both sides. But one side is going to continue to compromise much more than the other. From this starting point, I'm OK with that, because the alternative is even worse. But is the Conservative Party as currently configured going to be OK with that?
Sure Tories are OK with it since its the EU that will be compromising more.
Its really simple. Divergence not possible = EU vision. Divergence possible = UK vision.
The EU is not saying that divergence isn't possible, just that you can't get a free ride while doing so.
It has been a remarkable achievement to develop a new vaccine and take it from phase 1 to phase 3 trails in a year. In any other field of endeavour, there would be much more honouring and feting of the individuals and teams involved.
Science saves the day ... again.
If the BBC were seriously interested in its public service remit, it would be running SPOTY where S stands for science. If the press were seriously interested in science, they would be running profiles on how the superhuman job was done, instead of "We're the Best Boy band" and "Rating all Mariah Carey's greatest hits" from the rubbish in todays Guardian. We make all this fuss over e.g., Lewis Hamilton or Jordan Henderson, but the scientists have done a far, far greater thing.
I still think the job of persuading enough of the population to take the vaccine to achieve herd immunity is going to be more difficult than many people think. If the vaccine only confers temporary immunity, then take-up of the vaccine will need to be much larger than the simple estimate based on R.
My estimate is probably >90 per cent will be needed for herd immunity, if the vaccine immunity only last a year or so. This will be really tough to get to.
The likeliest outcome from here is SARS-CoV-2 will become endemic but at a lowish level, returning every Northern Hemisphere winter to take a further grim toll. So, vaccine certificates are also probably going to be inevitable -- if you wish to access certain services (not just Ryanair, probably also schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, restaurants, theatre).
They are part of our future.
Herd immunity will be achieved at well under 90%.
I don`t know the maths but I wouldn`t be surprised if as little as 25% would be sufficient to bring R under 1.0. The virus`s replication options would diminish and diminish.
My guess is that vaccine take-up will be higher than some think, adult take-up of 80% + I think.
This idea anyone is buckling ignores any negotiations where a deal is being thrashed out
Maybe wait for the detail if and when a deal is struck
Eh? I'm not one of the few who's been saying for months that the EU would "buckle" because "we hold all the cards".
Frankly I'm happy that a deal looks closer today.
I have never believed we hold all the cards but equally neither does the EU
A deal needs compromise on both sides
Has anyone said the UK has no cards?
I can think of people, here and in the public space, who have said that the UK has all the cards, or pocket aces or whatever.
I can also think of people who think that the UK has fewer, and lower value, cards than the EU, and that we've not played them as smartly as we could have.
So the logic is that, when a deal comes (and it will have to, because the UK really needs a deal), it will be much closer to the EU's vision than the UK's. A body representing more people and more GDP is bound to have a dominant say in such a situation. From a purely democratic point of view, that's how it should be.
So yes- there will be compromises on both sides. But one side is going to continue to compromise much more than the other. From this starting point, I'm OK with that, because the alternative is even worse. But is the Conservative Party as currently configured going to be OK with that?
Sure Tories are OK with it since its the EU that will be compromising more.
Its really simple. Divergence not possible = EU vision. Divergence possible = UK vision.
The EU is not saying that divergence isn't possible, just that you can't get a free ride while doing so.
Fine with Brexiteers. Considering we're OK with "no deal" then having a deal plus we can do what we want but the EU might retaliate if we do something they dislike then that is a fantastic deal. It gives us all the freedom of no deal and probably all the benefits of a deal. Win/win, or unicorn as you may call it.
It's not an "Immunity Passport" but a "Vaccination Certificate"
Are Yellow Fever vaccination certificates 'impractical" or "unethical"?
Dunno, but I'll tell you this: I chucked out an out of date one a bit ago, only to learn yesterday that they no longer expire, even if they say they do. Not that I am likely to need one in the foreseeable, but it does rather make the case for hoarding.
Just been out in the Toon. As busy as, well, last December. Social distancing not much. Many more maskless on the Metro than previous. Tier 3 seems to be meaning far less than Tier 2 did to folk.
This idea anyone is buckling ignores any negotiations where a deal is being thrashed out
Maybe wait for the detail if and when a deal is struck
Eh? I'm not one of the few who's been saying for months that the EU would "buckle" because "we hold all the cards".
Frankly I'm happy that a deal looks closer today.
I have never believed we hold all the cards but equally neither does the EU
A deal needs compromise on both sides
Has anyone said the UK has no cards?
I can think of people, here and in the public space, who have said that the UK has all the cards, or pocket aces or whatever.
I can also think of people who think that the UK has fewer, and lower value, cards than the EU, and that we've not played them as smartly as we could have.
So the logic is that, when a deal comes (and it will have to, because the UK really needs a deal), it will be much closer to the EU's vision than the UK's. A body representing more people and more GDP is bound to have a dominant say in such a situation. From a purely democratic point of view, that's how it should be.
So yes- there will be compromises on both sides. But one side is going to continue to compromise much more than the other. From this starting point, I'm OK with that, because the alternative is even worse. But is the Conservative Party as currently configured going to be OK with that?
Sure Tories are OK with it since its the EU that will be compromising more.
Its really simple. Divergence not possible = EU vision. Divergence possible = UK vision.
The EU is not saying that divergence isn't possible, just that you can't get a free ride while doing so.
And from memory, the question about divergence/retaliation was more about the extent. The UK wanted a model of "if the UK unilaterally diverges on X, the EU can retaliate on X and only X", whereas the EU wanted a model of "if the UK diverges on X, we will take a sovereign decision of where we retaliate".
The UK's model might sound fairer, but it means that the UK can unpick any compromises it makes to get The Deal. And even if the EU can do the same, they're not interested in playing that game.
But the landing point matters. If the UK has absolute freedom to diverge, it's not offering much to get the benefits it wants. If the penalties of divergence are pitched sufficiently high, the UK has a freedom to diverge that it will never be in the UK's interests to exercise. And what's the point of that?
Bloody hell; I'd have put a lot of money on those things never flying again.
Utterly perfect timing, because what the world needs exactly now is a reminder of the kind of thing you can get past a bunch of regulators when commercial considerations dictate.
At least he has a sense of humour unlike those outraged at his comments.
He is still hopeless though
The clown can't risk anyone competent too close, and showing him up. Look at what's happening with Rishi, who was supposed to be a patsy chosen solely so he could dispense with Javid.
This idea anyone is buckling ignores any negotiations where a deal is being thrashed out
Maybe wait for the detail if and when a deal is struck
Eh? I'm not one of the few who's been saying for months that the EU would "buckle" because "we hold all the cards".
Frankly I'm happy that a deal looks closer today.
I have never believed we hold all the cards but equally neither does the EU
A deal needs compromise on both sides
Has anyone said the UK has no cards?
I can think of people, here and in the public space, who have said that the UK has all the cards, or pocket aces or whatever.
I can also think of people who think that the UK has fewer, and lower value, cards than the EU, and that we've not played them as smartly as we could have.
So the logic is that, when a deal comes (and it will have to, because the UK really needs a deal), it will be much closer to the EU's vision than the UK's. A body representing more people and more GDP is bound to have a dominant say in such a situation. From a purely democratic point of view, that's how it should be.
So yes- there will be compromises on both sides. But one side is going to continue to compromise much more than the other. From this starting point, I'm OK with that, because the alternative is even worse. But is the Conservative Party as currently configured going to be OK with that?
Sure Tories are OK with it since its the EU that will be compromising more.
Its really simple. Divergence not possible = EU vision. Divergence possible = UK vision.
The EU is not saying that divergence isn't possible, just that you can't get a free ride while doing so.
And from memory, the question about divergence/retaliation was more about the extent. The UK wanted a model of "if the UK unilaterally diverges on X, the EU can retaliate on X and only X", whereas the EU wanted a model of "if the UK diverges on X, we will take a sovereign decision of where we retaliate".
The UK's model might sound fairer, but it means that the UK can unpick any compromises it makes to get The Deal. And even if the EU can do the same, they're not interested in playing that game.
But the landing point matters. If the UK has absolute freedom to diverge, it's not offering much to get the benefits it wants. If the penalties of divergence are pitched sufficiently high, the UK has a freedom to diverge that it will never be in the UK's interests to exercise. And what's the point of that?
If you're OK with No Deal as I am and as many Tory MPs are then its not possible for the penalties of divergence to be pitched that high. A deal with the UK having unilateral control of our laws is an absolute win/win as we gain both the freedom to set our own laws and we have a deal. That would be fantastic.
That is why Barnier has been against that. He wants us tied down and committed, no ifs or buts. If the worst the EU has is retaliations and the UK isn't tied down then we're trading on similar terms to WTO (which operates the same way) but with a deal. Great, what's not to like?
The reporter says: "She claimed that anyone could vote under her name, and no one would know. Interestingly, that rarely happens in the United States. Cases of voter fraud are so rare, in fact, that they always get caught and charged with a federal crime that includes prison." How does she or anyone know that?
A bold move by O'Leary, unless it was buy one get 74 free.
Airbus A320 for me please.
I've flown on a LionAir 737Max - (not the one that crashed) and its quite a pleasant plane from a passenger pov. But there's no getting round it is built with a fuselage cross section better suited to the passengers of 60 years ago than today. I too prefer the A320 - not that I fancy doing a trans Atlantic in one, as some are now doing...
This idea anyone is buckling ignores any negotiations where a deal is being thrashed out
Maybe wait for the detail if and when a deal is struck
Eh? I'm not one of the few who's been saying for months that the EU would "buckle" because "we hold all the cards".
Frankly I'm happy that a deal looks closer today.
I have never believed we hold all the cards but equally neither does the EU
A deal needs compromise on both sides
Has anyone said the UK has no cards?
I can think of people, here and in the public space, who have said that the UK has all the cards, or pocket aces or whatever.
I can also think of people who think that the UK has fewer, and lower value, cards than the EU, and that we've not played them as smartly as we could have.
So the logic is that, when a deal comes (and it will have to, because the UK really needs a deal), it will be much closer to the EU's vision than the UK's. A body representing more people and more GDP is bound to have a dominant say in such a situation. From a purely democratic point of view, that's how it should be.
So yes- there will be compromises on both sides. But one side is going to continue to compromise much more than the other. From this starting point, I'm OK with that, because the alternative is even worse. But is the Conservative Party as currently configured going to be OK with that?
Sure Tories are OK with it since its the EU that will be compromising more.
Its really simple. Divergence not possible = EU vision. Divergence possible = UK vision.
The EU is not saying that divergence isn't possible, just that you can't get a free ride while doing so.
And from memory, the question about divergence/retaliation was more about the extent. The UK wanted a model of "if the UK unilaterally diverges on X, the EU can retaliate on X and only X", whereas the EU wanted a model of "if the UK diverges on X, we will take a sovereign decision of where we retaliate".
The UK's model might sound fairer, but it means that the UK can unpick any compromises it makes to get The Deal. And even if the EU can do the same, they're not interested in playing that game.
But the landing point matters. If the UK has absolute freedom to diverge, it's not offering much to get the benefits it wants. If the penalties of divergence are pitched sufficiently high, the UK has a freedom to diverge that it will never be in the UK's interests to exercise. And what's the point of that?
If you're OK with No Deal as I am and as many Tory MPs are then its not possible for the penalties of divergence to be pitched that high. A deal with the UK having unilateral control of our laws is an absolute win/win as we gain both the freedom to set our own laws and we have a deal. That would be fantastic.
That is why Barnier has been against that. He wants us tied down and committed, no ifs or buts. If the worst the EU has is retaliations and the UK isn't tied down then we're trading on similar terms to WTO (which operates the same way) but with a deal. Great, what's not to like?
But that only works if Phillip's understanding of international trade is better than all those silly people who waste time compromising sovereignty to agree trade deals. Or that mad fool Mrs Thatcher when she pushed for the single market.
It only works if Phillip's understanding of business logistics is better than the people who do it for a living.
It only works if Phillip's understanding of the business of selling fish is better than people who do it as their job.
It has been a remarkable achievement to develop a new vaccine and take it from phase 1 to phase 3 trails in a year. In any other field of endeavour, there would be much more honouring and feting of the individuals and teams involved.
Science saves the day ... again.
If the BBC were seriously interested in its public service remit, it would be running SPOTY where S stands for science. If the press were seriously interested in science, they would be running profiles on how the superhuman job was done, instead of "We're the Best Boy band" and "Rating all Mariah Carey's greatest hits" from the rubbish in todays Guardian. We make all this fuss over e.g., Lewis Hamilton or Jordan Henderson, but the scientists have done a far, far greater thing.
I still think the job of persuading enough of the population to take the vaccine to achieve herd immunity is going to be more difficult than many people think. If the vaccine only confers temporary immunity, then take-up of the vaccine will need to be much larger than the simple estimate based on R.
My estimate is probably >90 per cent will be needed for herd immunity, if the vaccine immunity only last a year or so. This will be really tough to get to.
The likeliest outcome from here is SARS-CoV-2 will become endemic but at a lowish level, returning every Northern Hemisphere winter to take a further grim toll. So, vaccine certificates are also probably going to be inevitable -- if you wish to access certain services (not just Ryanair, probably also schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, restaurants, theatre).
They are part of our future.
Herd immunity will be achieved at well under 90%.
I don`t know the maths but I wouldn`t be surprised if as little as 25% would be sufficient to bring R under 1.0. The virus`s replication options would diminish and diminish.
My guess is that vaccine take-up will be higher than some think, adult take-up of 80% + I think.
It is very hard to argue with someone who seriously writes "I don't know the maths" and then proceeds to give quantitive values out of thin air. It is Seriously Hartley-Brewer. It is Pure Toby.
If the immunity lasts for a long period of time, then the proportion is (1-1/R)/epsilon, where epsilon is the efficiency and R is the reproduction rate. This assumes a completely homogeneous population, no inflow or outflow of people from an area carrying the virus, an almost instantaneous vaccination program, etc.
But, if the immunity only last a short period (which seems reasonable from what we know of the virus), then the equation also involves the rate at which people are immunised and the average duration of protection provided by the vaccine, as well as how R changes with time, and so on.
Or we could all just believe Toby Random-Nutter on a blog who doesn't do the maths.
It's not an "Immunity Passport" but a "Vaccination Certificate"
Are Yellow Fever vaccination certificates 'impractical" or "unethical"?
Dunno, but I'll tell you this: I chucked out an out of date one a bit ago, only to learn yesterday that they no longer expire, even if they say they do. Not that I am likely to need one in the foreseeable, but it does rather make the case for hoarding.
I wouldn't trust it when crossing an African border, don't want a dodgy booster there!
It has been a remarkable achievement to develop a new vaccine and take it from phase 1 to phase 3 trails in a year. In any other field of endeavour, there would be much more honouring and feting of the individuals and teams involved.
Science saves the day ... again.
If the BBC were seriously interested in its public service remit, it would be running SPOTY where S stands for science. If the press were seriously interested in science, they would be running profiles on how the superhuman job was done, instead of "We're the Best Boy band" and "Rating all Mariah Carey's greatest hits" from the rubbish in todays Guardian. We make all this fuss over e.g., Lewis Hamilton or Jordan Henderson, but the scientists have done a far, far greater thing.
I still think the job of persuading enough of the population to take the vaccine to achieve herd immunity is going to be more difficult than many people think. If the vaccine only confers temporary immunity, then take-up of the vaccine will need to be much larger than the simple estimate based on R.
My estimate is probably >90 per cent will be needed for herd immunity, if the vaccine immunity only last a year or so. This will be really tough to get to.
The likeliest outcome from here is SARS-CoV-2 will become endemic but at a lowish level, returning every Northern Hemisphere winter to take a further grim toll. So, vaccine certificates are also probably going to be inevitable -- if you wish to access certain services (not just Ryanair, probably also schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, restaurants, theatre).
They are part of our future.
Herd immunity will be achieved at well under 90%.
I don`t know the maths but I wouldn`t be surprised if as little as 25% would be sufficient to bring R under 1.0. The virus`s replication options would diminish and diminish.
My guess is that vaccine take-up will be higher than some think, adult take-up of 80% + I think.
It is very hard to argue with someone who seriously writes "I don't know the maths" and then proceeds to give quantitive values out of thin air. It is Seriously Hartley-Brewer. It is Pure Toby.
If the immunity lasts for a long period of time, then the proportion is (1-1/R)/epsilon, where epsilon is the efficiency and R is the reproduction rate. This assumes a completely homogeneous population, no inflow or outflow of people from an area carrying the virus, an almost instantaneous vaccination program, etc.
But, if the immunity only last a short period (which seems reasonable from what we know of the virus), then the equation also involves the rate at which people are immunised and the average duration of protection provided by the vaccine, as well as how R changes with time, and so on.
Or we could all just believe Toby Random-Nutter on a blog who doesn't do the maths.
Sorry, I think we are misunderstanding each other. I wasn`t in any way making a Toby-like point!
The problem is surely voting machines made anywhere. So far as I was aware, it was the settled view of the PB commentariat that voting machines were a total disaster and open to all sorts of tomfoolery. Since Trump now agrees, I have not heard anyone restate this opinion.
Comments
If there can be "systematic divergence" then we are not sticking to their rules and have regained control of our laws. That is not what Barnier has been demanding, but is what the Tory manifesto promised.
I can think of people, here and in the public space, who have said that the UK has all the cards, or pocket aces or whatever.
I can also think of people who think that the UK has fewer, and lower value, cards than the EU, and that we've not played them as smartly as we could have.
So the logic is that, when a deal comes (and it will have to, because the UK really needs a deal), it will be much closer to the EU's vision than the UK's. A body representing more people and more GDP is bound to have a dominant say in such a situation. From a purely democratic point of view, that's how it should be.
So yes- there will be compromises on both sides. But one side is going to continue to compromise much more than the other. From this starting point, I'm OK with that, because the alternative is even worse. But is the Conservative Party as currently configured going to be OK with that?
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1334529740368130049?s=20
It's not an "Immunity Passport" but a "Vaccination Certificate"
Are Yellow Fever vaccination certificates 'impractical" or "unethical"?
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1334527506645471235?s=20
Science saves the day ... again.
If the BBC were seriously interested in its public service remit, it would be running SPOTY where S stands for science. If the press were seriously interested in science, they would be running profiles on how the superhuman job was done, instead of "We're the Best Boy band" and "Rating all Mariah Carey's greatest hits" from the rubbish in todays Guardian. We make all this fuss over e.g., Lewis Hamilton or Jordan Henderson, but the scientists have done a far, far greater thing.
I still think the job of persuading enough of the population to take the vaccine to achieve herd immunity is going to be more difficult than many people think. If the vaccine only confers temporary immunity, then take-up of the vaccine will need to be much larger than the simple estimate based on R.
My estimate is probably >90 per cent will be needed for herd immunity, if the vaccine immunity only last a year or so. This will be really tough to get to.
The likeliest outcome from here is SARS-CoV-2 will become endemic but at a lowish level, returning every Northern Hemisphere winter to take a further grim toll. So, vaccine certificates are also probably going to be inevitable -- if you wish to access certain services (not just Ryanair, probably also schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, restaurants, theatre).
They are part of our future.
Its really simple. Divergence not possible = EU vision. Divergence possible = UK vision.
From case data
From hospitalisation data
I don`t know the maths but I wouldn`t be surprised if as little as 25% would be sufficient to bring R under 1.0. The virus`s replication options would diminish and diminish.
My guess is that vaccine take-up will be higher than some think, adult take-up of 80% + I think.
That is exactly what the UK has been asking for.
Tier 3 seems to be meaning far less than Tier 2 did to folk.
The UK's model might sound fairer, but it means that the UK can unpick any compromises it makes to get The Deal. And even if the EU can do the same, they're not interested in playing that game.
But the landing point matters. If the UK has absolute freedom to diverge, it's not offering much to get the benefits it wants. If the penalties of divergence are pitched sufficiently high, the UK has a freedom to diverge that it will never be in the UK's interests to exercise. And what's the point of that?
Airbus A320 for me please.
That is why Barnier has been against that. He wants us tied down and committed, no ifs or buts. If the worst the EU has is retaliations and the UK isn't tied down then we're trading on similar terms to WTO (which operates the same way) but with a deal. Great, what's not to like?
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1334535526704144387?s=20
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1334400742589825024
https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/1334381853684350976
"She claimed that anyone could vote under her name, and no one would know. Interestingly, that rarely happens in the United States. Cases of voter fraud are so rare, in fact, that they always get caught and charged with a federal crime that includes prison."
How does she or anyone know that?
It only works if Phillip's understanding of business logistics is better than the people who do it for a living.
It only works if Phillip's understanding of the business of selling fish is better than people who do it as their job.
Now that's all possible...
If the immunity lasts for a long period of time, then the proportion is (1-1/R)/epsilon, where epsilon is the efficiency and R is the reproduction rate. This assumes a completely homogeneous population, no inflow or outflow of people from an area carrying the virus, an almost instantaneous vaccination program, etc.
But, if the immunity only last a short period (which seems reasonable from what we know of the virus), then the equation also involves the rate at which people are immunised and the average duration of protection provided by the vaccine, as well as how R changes with time, and so on.
Or we could all just believe Toby Random-Nutter on a blog who doesn't do the maths.
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1334540347398107137?s=20