Sure, several Asian countries were better prepared for the pandemic -- but that is at the cost of severe restrictions on civil liberties that those countries are willing to accept. It is not really fair to compare South Korea or PR China with us, because there is no way those restrictions could be implemented here at the present moment.
I called some of my Beijing buddies the other day, and the level of restrictions in place even in Beijing (where there is no local transmission) is still terrifying. You sign in by smartphone wherever you go. The Government knows where you are at all time.
However, I was talking more generally about rare, destructive events, not just biological threats. We do not know whether the next threat will be a pandemic. It could e.g, come from space. Rare impact events are rare -- but not very rare on century timescales.
And, there are diseases for which vaccines cannot be developed. Humans are very ingenious. And some humans are very bad.
I am sure a bad, but ingenious, human can create a disease for which it is not true that "the tools developed to deal with this one are equally applicable to any future pandemic."
Rapid sequencing, rapid mass testing, isolation of infected individuals, and vaccines ought to be applicable to any infection. And certainly the first three.
To kill all of humanity with a pandemic, what do I need to do?
(And something will one day kill all of humanity, just as something killed the dinosaurs).
I need to make the disease MORE fatal than COVID, and I need to make it MORE infectious. But, I need to ensure delayed onset, so that the pathogen does not kill the human host before the host infects more and more people.
And now the question is: could a biotechnologist create such a disease ?
Nature may take some time to create such a killer disease, but with human help ...
You say something will but there are animals that exist today that also existed in the age of dinosaurs are there not?
In any form of reasonable timescale humanity is likely to survive, it's more likely to as you suggest be destroyed by itself than by nature.
I have a pretty good book - written by a sometime Guardian journalist - about possible doomsdays. It's pretty hard to kill off the entire human race. In most scenarios there would be some survivors, even if civilisation has collapsed.
What you are more likely to see human extinction with is from an external cause of excessive intensity - something like a supernova going off too close by, or itinerant aliens with locust-like operating procedures.
A pathogen or virus can't do it. There would be survivors.
The SN rate for a large galaxy is one a century.
The last one in the Milky Way was seen by Kepler (Oct 9th 1604).
It's overdue.
I believe Supernovas are used by scientists to measure the expansion rate of the universe - they are pretty common. It is also the case that an extinction event for Earth will be the Sun going pop - but I expect humans will by then be long gone to Proxima 2 or Kepler 28.
Not sure there'll be anything describable as "humans" by then.
So there is no clear indication yet from the data that infection rates have accelerated following the Thanksgiving holiday. The rate of growth of infections has remained about the same as in the weeks before the holiday......
It’s also too early to assess the impact on deaths as they can occur several weeks after infection. Experts say we may still be a week or so away from seeing the true impact – if any – of the Thanksgiving holiday.
The Covid Tracking Project, which monitors coronavirus statistics in the US, urged caution over drawing any conclusions from the recent data, saying: “Given the high rates of pre-holiday disease transmission, it'll be tricky to perfectly distinguish which events cause the spikes.
Well, we just joined the tier 3 club here in North Herts. That's us locked away until about May or June 2021. It's not really a surprise - we're surrounded by rampant outbreaks of the Plague on three sides - but all the same it's still yet another bloody setback.
My first reaction to that was "Fuck the bastard Government, let's get on the train to Cambridge on Saturday." We won't do it, but I bet a lot of people will. Many will reason that the restrictions are useless so there's no point in obeying them, and they may well have a point. The cause of suppression is hopeless. The disease is too contagious. You might just as well try to suppress the common cold. It's clear that the only means that are effective against it are warm weather and vaccination; otherwise, you're just talking about marginal gains.
The combination of the Christmas free-for-all and the new variant will deal the final coup de grace to the tier system. Lockdown 3.0 is coming, and it'll last all the way until next Summer. People who are worried about getting Covid or passing it on to vulnerable family members will do their largely ineffectual best to manage the risk - I fall into that category, though then again I'm forced to go out to work which means that anything I can do in that regard is of relatively little value - but I find it hard to blame those who aren't in that situation for simply giving up. Almost everyone is being ground down by the pandemic, and if things are bad enough for long enough then we'll all reach the limits of our endurance eventually. It's simply that some people get there faster than others.
We`ve narrowly missed it, though our neighbours, Milton Keynes and Bedford, have both copped it.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the vulnerable are vaccinated - by the end of January for first jab and by the end of February for the second jab?
Therefore, by March things should - should - relax as pressure is lifted from health services and the fear of transmission to vulnerable people recedes. But I fear that the lockdown-boosters, inc some in government and the media, will not relent from a risk-averse view of things, to the further detriment of us all, and the devolved parliaments will continue to monkey around no doubt.
Overall, I `m hopeful. I`m much happier than I was in the spring.
I continue to be astonished by the over-optimism surrounding how quickly the vaccine can be rolled out and how soon it will get us out of jail. Escape by March or April is not a plausible scenario. It will take a bloody age just to get both shots into health and care workers and the very old - there are something like five million of them, each needing two injections, to be got through before you even get as far as the 75-79 group, the shielders don't even get a look in until the 70-74 group are inoculated, and panic about the collapse of the hospitals is going to continue, realistically, until everybody in phase one - i.e. the clinically vulnerable as well as the extremely vulnerable, the NHS, the care workers, and the entire general population over 50 - have all been immunised twice. I am desperate for my husband to move to the front of the queue for the vaccine but, given that the shielders are stuck back in that fourth segment behind the entirety of Shady Pines, the NHS and everyone over 75, I reckon he'll be waiting until March at the very earliest.
The only reason that we are likely to move from total lockdown to something marginally less fucking awful at some point after Easter is warmer, drier weather. The real challenge is getting enough of the population lanced to get out of this unending misery of incarceration, isolation, widespread socio-economic implosion and grotty face masks by next Autumn.
I'm slightly surprised how complicated people think vaccinating 5 million people is. The UK manages five times that number in three months with the annual flu vaccine.
Vaccine availability, not sticking needles in people, is the big issue.
I'm kind of with you on this. When I hear - as I do keep hearing - that rolling out the vaccine is a "huge logistical challenge", this does not feel quite right to me. Piece of piss, no, of course not, but "huge logistical challenge" strikes me as an exaggeration. And I hope I'm right because if it really is a mammoth undertaking requiring great skill and co-ordination then I'd be a lot less confident of normal life returning almost in full by the summer. And I am pretty confident.
Well, we just joined the tier 3 club here in North Herts. That's us locked away until about May or June 2021. It's not really a surprise - we're surrounded by rampant outbreaks of the Plague on three sides - but all the same it's still yet another bloody setback.
My first reaction to that was "Fuck the bastard Government, let's get on the train to Cambridge on Saturday." We won't do it, but I bet a lot of people will. Many will reason that the restrictions are useless so there's no point in obeying them, and they may well have a point. The cause of suppression is hopeless. The disease is too contagious. You might just as well try to suppress the common cold. It's clear that the only means that are effective against it are warm weather and vaccination; otherwise, you're just talking about marginal gains.
The combination of the Christmas free-for-all and the new variant will deal the final coup de grace to the tier system. Lockdown 3.0 is coming, and it'll last all the way until next Summer. People who are worried about getting Covid or passing it on to vulnerable family members will do their largely ineffectual best to manage the risk - I fall into that category, though then again I'm forced to go out to work which means that anything I can do in that regard is of relatively little value - but I find it hard to blame those who aren't in that situation for simply giving up. Almost everyone is being ground down by the pandemic, and if things are bad enough for long enough then we'll all reach the limits of our endurance eventually. It's simply that some people get there faster than others.
We`ve narrowly missed it, though our neighbours, Milton Keynes and Bedford, have both copped it.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the vulnerable are vaccinated - by the end of January for first jab and by the end of February for the second jab?
Therefore, by March things should - should - relax as pressure is lifted from health services and the fear of transmission to vulnerable people recedes. But I fear that the lockdown-boosters, inc some in government and the media, will not relent from a risk-averse view of things, to the further detriment of us all, and the devolved parliaments will continue to monkey around no doubt.
Overall, I `m hopeful. I`m much happier than I was in the spring.
I continue to be astonished by the over-optimism surrounding how quickly the vaccine can be rolled out and how soon it will get us out of jail. Escape by March or April is not a plausible scenario. It will take a bloody age just to get both shots into health and care workers and the very old - there are something like five million of them, each needing two injections, to be got through before you even get as far as the 75-79 group, the shielders don't even get a look in until the 70-74 group are inoculated, and panic about the collapse of the hospitals is going to continue, realistically, until everybody in phase one - i.e. the clinically vulnerable as well as the extremely vulnerable, the NHS, the care workers, and the entire general population over 50 - have all been immunised twice. I am desperate for my husband to move to the front of the queue for the vaccine but, given that the shielders are stuck back in that fourth segment behind the entirety of Shady Pines, the NHS and everyone over 75, I reckon he'll be waiting until March at the very earliest.
The only reason that we are likely to move from total lockdown to something marginally less fucking awful at some point after Easter is warmer, drier weather. The real challenge is getting enough of the population lanced to get out of this unending misery of incarceration, isolation, widespread socio-economic implosion and grotty face masks by next Autumn.
I'm slightly surprised how complicated people think vaccinating 5 million people is. The UK manages five times that number in three months with the annual flu vaccine.
Vaccine availability, not sticking needles in people, is the big issue.
I'm kind of with you on this. When I hear - as I do keep hearing - that rolling out the vaccine is a "huge logistical challenge", this does not feel quite right to me. Piece of piss, no, of course not, but "huge logistical challenge" strikes me as an exaggeration. And I hope I'm right because if it really is a mammoth undertaking requiring great skill and co-ordination then I'd be a lot less confident of normal life returning almost in full by the summer. And I am pretty confident.
I think some of the talked about difficulty is to stop folk getting worried that they haven't been called by the GP yet. Expectation management...
So which was the "type"? A Tory woman who voted in favour of homosexual law reform nearly two decades before becoming PM, and supported a health campaign that saved tens of thousands of gay lives? Or does that not fit "the narrative"?
It was of course Margaret Thatcher who forced Scotland to accept the legalisation of homosexuality, which until 1980 it had resisted.
But of course in the mythology it was Mrs Thatcher who was the bigot. After all, we couldn't have the self-image of Scotland polluted by facts, could we?
I forgot to add Thatcher was also one of the few Tories who voted in favour of Leo Abse's bill in 1966......
Liz Truss is definitely on the march in the background. Dry as a bone, successes with trade deals, and playing up to the red wall with her speech today.
Maybe the country will want a fresh start if this nightmare ever ends.
I`ve a few quid on her . But I can`t really see her being one of the two MPs that go on to be voted on by the membership.
Right now, she's pushing all the right buttons for me. And showing leadership.
But, she hasn't yet held a Great Office of State.
I'd like to see her take over at the Home Office. So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I'm sure she could apply the same grit against vested interests at the Home Office and reform the HRA and take on the activist lawyer base that thrive on finding loopholes in it for criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
Well, we just joined the tier 3 club here in North Herts. That's us locked away until about May or June 2021. It's not really a surprise - we're surrounded by rampant outbreaks of the Plague on three sides - but all the same it's still yet another bloody setback.
My first reaction to that was "Fuck the bastard Government, let's get on the train to Cambridge on Saturday." We won't do it, but I bet a lot of people will. Many will reason that the restrictions are useless so there's no point in obeying them, and they may well have a point. The cause of suppression is hopeless. The disease is too contagious. You might just as well try to suppress the common cold. It's clear that the only means that are effective against it are warm weather and vaccination; otherwise, you're just talking about marginal gains.
The combination of the Christmas free-for-all and the new variant will deal the final coup de grace to the tier system. Lockdown 3.0 is coming, and it'll last all the way until next Summer. People who are worried about getting Covid or passing it on to vulnerable family members will do their largely ineffectual best to manage the risk - I fall into that category, though then again I'm forced to go out to work which means that anything I can do in that regard is of relatively little value - but I find it hard to blame those who aren't in that situation for simply giving up. Almost everyone is being ground down by the pandemic, and if things are bad enough for long enough then we'll all reach the limits of our endurance eventually. It's simply that some people get there faster than others.
We`ve narrowly missed it, though our neighbours, Milton Keynes and Bedford, have both copped it.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the vulnerable are vaccinated - by the end of January for first jab and by the end of February for the second jab?
Therefore, by March things should - should - relax as pressure is lifted from health services and the fear of transmission to vulnerable people recedes. But I fear that the lockdown-boosters, inc some in government and the media, will not relent from a risk-averse view of things, to the further detriment of us all, and the devolved parliaments will continue to monkey around no doubt.
Overall, I `m hopeful. I`m much happier than I was in the spring.
I continue to be astonished by the over-optimism surrounding how quickly the vaccine can be rolled out and how soon it will get us out of jail. Escape by March or April is not a plausible scenario. It will take a bloody age just to get both shots into health and care workers and the very old - there are something like five million of them, each needing two injections, to be got through before you even get as far as the 75-79 group, the shielders don't even get a look in until the 70-74 group are inoculated, and panic about the collapse of the hospitals is going to continue, realistically, until everybody in phase one - i.e. the clinically vulnerable as well as the extremely vulnerable, the NHS, the care workers, and the entire general population over 50 - have all been immunised twice. I am desperate for my husband to move to the front of the queue for the vaccine but, given that the shielders are stuck back in that fourth segment behind the entirety of Shady Pines, the NHS and everyone over 75, I reckon he'll be waiting until March at the very earliest.
The only reason that we are likely to move from total lockdown to something marginally less fucking awful at some point after Easter is warmer, drier weather. The real challenge is getting enough of the population lanced to get out of this unending misery of incarceration, isolation, widespread socio-economic implosion and grotty face masks by next Autumn.
I'm slightly surprised how complicated people think vaccinating 5 million people is. The UK manages five times that number in three months with the annual flu vaccine.
Vaccine availability, not sticking needles in people, is the big issue.
I'm kind of with you on this. When I hear - as I do keep hearing - that rolling out the vaccine is a "huge logistical challenge", this does not feel quite right to me. Piece of piss, no, of course not, but "huge logistical challenge" strikes me as an exaggeration. And I hope I'm right because if it really is a mammoth undertaking requiring great skill and co-ordination then I'd be a lot less confident of normal life returning almost in full by the summer. And I am pretty confident.
I think some of the talked about difficulty is to stop folk getting worried that they haven't been called by the GP yet. Expectation management...
So which was the "type"? A Tory woman who voted in favour of homosexual law reform nearly two decades before becoming PM, and supported a health campaign that saved tens of thousands of gay lives? Or does that not fit "the narrative"?
It was of course Margaret Thatcher who forced Scotland to accept the legalisation of homosexuality, which until 1980 it had resisted.
But of course in the mythology it was Mrs Thatcher who was the bigot. After all, we couldn't have the self-image of Scotland polluted by facts, could we?
A bit before my active interest in politics, but in what respect could Scotland 'choose' to accept the legislation? Edit: or, conversely, await legislation whiuuch it demanded?
It had to accept what was imposed by the Secretary of State, and in such circumstances the people whose views most counted would have been the SCUP?
It was on the whole progressive in such matters come 1997 and devolution.
So when does my son go back? Because he's come home from school today for the holidays and as far as anyone including his teachers know its Monday 5th...
Liz Truss is definitely on the march in the background. Dry as a bone, successes with trade deals, and playing up to the red wall with her speech today.
Maybe the country will want a fresh start if this nightmare ever ends.
I`ve a few quid on her . But I can`t really see her being one of the two MPs that go on to be voted on by the membership.
Right now, she's pushing all the right buttons for me. And showing leadership.
But, she hasn't yet held a Great Office of State.
I'd like to see her take over at the Home Office. So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I'm sure she could apply the same grit against vested interests at the Home Office and reform the HRA and take on the activist lawyer base that thrive on finding loopholes in it for criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
Max, I really don't think that any 'vested interests' have been trying to stop us rolling over existing EU trade agreements. In fact, it has of course been those very same entrenched civil servants who have actually done the negotiation to make sure it happens. Liz Truss deserves credit for overseeing that process, and doesn't seem to have screwed anything up, which is good, but let's not over-state things.
Interesting speech on inequality, though. I'm quite impressed by that.
So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
So which was the "type"? A Tory woman who voted in favour of homosexual law reform nearly two decades before becoming PM, and supported a health campaign that saved tens of thousands of gay lives? Or does that not fit "the narrative"?
It was of course Margaret Thatcher who forced Scotland to accept the legalisation of homosexuality, which until 1980 it had resisted.
But of course in the mythology it was Mrs Thatcher who was the bigot. After all, we couldn't have the self-image of Scotland polluted by facts, could we?
A bit before my active interest in politics, but in what respect could Scotland 'choose' to accept the legislation? Edit: or, conversely, await legislation whiuuch it demanded?
It had to accept what was imposed by the Secretary of State, and in such circumstances the people whose views most counted would have been the SCUP?
It was on the whole progressive in such matters come 1997 and devolution.
Err, no, it wasn't 'progressive'. It was so un-progressive (regressive?) that in 1967 it was considered unacceptable to impose legalisation of homosexuality on Scotland (and on NI, for similar reasons). That is why the 1967 Act applied only to England & Wales, until Maggie came to power.
Liz Truss is definitely on the march in the background. Dry as a bone, successes with trade deals, and playing up to the red wall with her speech today.
Maybe the country will want a fresh start if this nightmare ever ends.
I`ve a few quid on her . But I can`t really see her being one of the two MPs that go on to be voted on by the membership.
Right now, she's pushing all the right buttons for me. And showing leadership.
But, she hasn't yet held a Great Office of State.
I'd like to see her take over at the Home Office. So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I'm sure she could apply the same grit against vested interests at the Home Office and reform the HRA and take on the activist lawyer base that thrive on finding loopholes in it for criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
Max, I really don't think that any 'vested interests' have been trying to stop us rolling over existing EU trade agreements. In fact, it has of course been those very same entrenched civil servants who have actually done the negotiation to make sure it happens. Liz Truss deserves credit for overseeing that process, and doesn't seem to have screwed anything up, which is good, but let's not over-state things.
Interesting speech on inequality, though. I'm quite impressed by that.
I can see the point, but isn't she trapped in the same dilemma as other Cabinet members? If the government does well over the next six months, there won't be a vacancy. If the government does badly enough for the PM to have to go, being part of his Cabinet will be a massive black mark against her.
I can see the point, but isn't she trapped in the same dilemma as other Cabinet members? If the government does well over the next six months, there won't be a vacancy. If the government does badly enough for the PM to have to go, being part of his Cabinet will be a massive black mark against her.
I'm not sure about the last bit - after all, the part of Brexit for which she has had responsibility has been one of the few bits which has been completed smoothly and on time.
Whether she is potential leadership material is another question. Dunno.
So which was the "type"? A Tory woman who voted in favour of homosexual law reform nearly two decades before becoming PM, and supported a health campaign that saved tens of thousands of gay lives? Or does that not fit "the narrative"?
It was of course Margaret Thatcher who forced Scotland to accept the legalisation of homosexuality, which until 1980 it had resisted.
But of course in the mythology it was Mrs Thatcher who was the bigot. After all, we couldn't have the self-image of Scotland polluted by facts, could we?
A bit before my active interest in politics, but in what respect could Scotland 'choose' to accept the legislation? Edit: or, conversely, await legislation whiuuch it demanded?
It had to accept what was imposed by the Secretary of State, and in such circumstances the people whose views most counted would have been the SCUP?
It was on the whole progressive in such matters come 1997 and devolution.
Err, no, it wasn't 'progressive'. It was so un-progressive (regressive?) that in 1967 it was considered unacceptable to impose legalisation of homosexuality on Scotland (and on NI, for similar reasons). That is why the 1967 Act applied only to England & Wales, until Maggie came to power.
That was a long time ago! Before even 1980. However I'm intrigued - who were the people who were against it in 1967 that Harold Wilson wouldn't override and who allegedly Mrs T had to override in 1980?
Aa for the Section 28 laws the Scots abolished them once they got their Pmt back, though 2000 is a bit late in my view. And then things more or less in step, if not sliglty before if this is correct
So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I thought the whole point of Brexit was to allow things to change, yet the government seem to be boasting about keeping things exactly as they are. What was the point, then?
Liz Truss is definitely on the march in the background. Dry as a bone, successes with trade deals, and playing up to the red wall with her speech today.
Maybe the country will want a fresh start if this nightmare ever ends.
I`ve a few quid on her . But I can`t really see her being one of the two MPs that go on to be voted on by the membership.
Right now, she's pushing all the right buttons for me. And showing leadership.
But, she hasn't yet held a Great Office of State.
I'd like to see her take over at the Home Office. So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I'm sure she could apply the same grit against vested interests at the Home Office and reform the HRA and take on the activist lawyer base that thrive on finding loopholes in it for criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
Max, I really don't think that any 'vested interests' have been trying to stop us rolling over existing EU trade agreements. In fact, it has of course been those very same entrenched civil servants who have actually done the negotiation to make sure it happens. Liz Truss deserves credit for overseeing that process, and doesn't seem to have screwed anything up, which is good, but let's not over-state things.
Interesting speech on inequality, though. I'm quite impressed by that.
With Theresa May those same civil servants were known to be dragging their feet to try and force the unsatisfactory customs union solution (I have this from someone who worked there under Liam Fox) by resisting signing third party deals as "unnecessary" due to an impending customs union deal to be negotiated by the Brexit department. I've been told that they literally pushed that agenda and resisted rolling over existing trade deals to leave the Brexit team no choice but to go for the customs union option as that would be the only way for the UK to trade freely with non-EU countries. Unsurprisingly she quit.
It's why I've been even more impressed with Liz Truss than most, knowing the internal agenda of the department and also knowing that she's effectively had to face them down and get them on board with the government agenda of trading independently from the EU and act with speed to sign trade deals covering £200bn of our non-EU trade. As I've said before, her good work at the DIT has definitely helped our negotiating stance with the EU. This time last year we had 0% of our international trade covered by tariff free deals and the crash out scenario meant WTO terms for all of our exports, part of the EU's stance on trade was driven by knowing the crash out would be absolutely horrific because we would either have to apply tariffs to all imported goods resulting in 8-12% in price rises or go down the Minford route of having no tariffs at all to avoid the inflation and resulting job losses and poverty it comes with. By fixing that situation it's taken both of those off the table and the EU has realised we could accept tariffs on EU imports/exports as we have huge markets with tariff free access to replace a lot of the existing markets.
Don't just take my word for it, look at how much the EU has moved in the last few weeks on the LPF, they started at unilateral suspension of the deal if the UK failed to stay in lockstep with future EU regulations, now they are proposing arbitration set tariffs for future regression from the current levels. Their position is materially different to where they started, Liz Truss making no deal from a horrific disaster to something we could probably deal with in the medium to long term is part of why they have moved.
So which was the "type"? A Tory woman who voted in favour of homosexual law reform nearly two decades before becoming PM, and supported a health campaign that saved tens of thousands of gay lives? Or does that not fit "the narrative"?
It was of course Margaret Thatcher who forced Scotland to accept the legalisation of homosexuality, which until 1980 it had resisted.
But of course in the mythology it was Mrs Thatcher who was the bigot. After all, we couldn't have the self-image of Scotland polluted by facts, could we?
A bit before my active interest in politics, but in what respect could Scotland 'choose' to accept the legislation? Edit: or, conversely, await legislation whiuuch it demanded?
It had to accept what was imposed by the Secretary of State, and in such circumstances the people whose views most counted would have been the SCUP?
It was on the whole progressive in such matters come 1997 and devolution.
If you ignore the massive self-organised "referendum" to "Keep the Clause" funded by one of the SNP's biggest financial backers.
So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I thought the whole point of Brexit was to allow things to change, yet the government seem to be boasting about keeping things exactly as they are. What was the point, then?
No reason it can't change in the future, but given time is of the essence why try to do it now?
So which was the "type"? A Tory woman who voted in favour of homosexual law reform nearly two decades before becoming PM, and supported a health campaign that saved tens of thousands of gay lives? Or does that not fit "the narrative"?
It was of course Margaret Thatcher who forced Scotland to accept the legalisation of homosexuality, which until 1980 it had resisted.
But of course in the mythology it was Mrs Thatcher who was the bigot. After all, we couldn't have the self-image of Scotland polluted by facts, could we?
A bit before my active interest in politics, but in what respect could Scotland 'choose' to accept the legislation? Edit: or, conversely, await legislation whiuuch it demanded?
It had to accept what was imposed by the Secretary of State, and in such circumstances the people whose views most counted would have been the SCUP?
It was on the whole progressive in such matters come 1997 and devolution.
If you ignore the massive self-organised "referendum" to "Keep the Clause" funded by one of the SNP's biggest financial backers.
That was a long time ago! Before even 1980. However I'm intrigued - who were the people who were against it in 1967 that Harold Wilson wouldn't override and who allegedly Mrs T had to override in 1980?
Aa for the Section 28 laws the Scots abolished them once they got their Pmt back, though 2000 is a bit late in my view. And then things more or less in step, if not sliglty before if this is correct
It's not that long ago for those of us who remember it! I think it was Scottish Labour in particular who pushed back against legalisation in 1967.
Until recently Scotland was more socially conservative than England, perhaps because of the influence of both the Catholic Church (especially in Glasgow and surrounding areas), and the various Presbyterian-based protestant churches. Of course that influence was declining in the 1970s and 1980s (as elsewhere), but it's simply not true that Scotland was more 'progressive' than England. I'm not even sure it's true now, surveys seem to show little if any difference nowadays.
Liz Truss is definitely on the march in the background. Dry as a bone, successes with trade deals, and playing up to the red wall with her speech today.
Maybe the country will want a fresh start if this nightmare ever ends.
I`ve a few quid on her . But I can`t really see her being one of the two MPs that go on to be voted on by the membership.
Right now, she's pushing all the right buttons for me. And showing leadership.
But, she hasn't yet held a Great Office of State.
I'd like to see her take over at the Home Office. So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I'm sure she could apply the same grit against vested interests at the Home Office and reform the HRA and take on the activist lawyer base that thrive on finding loopholes in it for criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
I'd like to see that, too, because... a) almost anyone would be an improvement on Pritti Patel b) it would be more likely to sink her career than make it - and if I'm wrong about that, then fair enough.
Liz Truss is definitely on the march in the background. Dry as a bone, successes with trade deals, and playing up to the red wall with her speech today.
Maybe the country will want a fresh start if this nightmare ever ends.
I`ve a few quid on her . But I can`t really see her being one of the two MPs that go on to be voted on by the membership.
Right now, she's pushing all the right buttons for me. And showing leadership.
But, she hasn't yet held a Great Office of State.
I'd like to see her take over at the Home Office. So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I'm sure she could apply the same grit against vested interests at the Home Office and reform the HRA and take on the activist lawyer base that thrive on finding loopholes in it for criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
Max, I really don't think that any 'vested interests' have been trying to stop us rolling over existing EU trade agreements. In fact, it has of course been those very same entrenched civil servants who have actually done the negotiation to make sure it happens. Liz Truss deserves credit for overseeing that process, and doesn't seem to have screwed anything up, which is good, but let's not over-state things.
Interesting speech on inequality, though. I'm quite impressed by that.
With Theresa May those same civil servants were known to be dragging their feet to try and force the unsatisfactory customs union solution (I have this from someone who worked there under Liam Fox) by resisting signing third party deals as "unnecessary" due to an impending customs union deal to be negotiated by the Brexit department. I've been told that they literally pushed that agenda and resisted rolling over existing trade deals to leave the Brexit team no choice but to go for the customs union option as that would be the only way for the UK to trade freely with non-EU countries. Unsurprisingly she quit.
It's why I've been even more impressed with Liz Truss than most, knowing the internal agenda of the department and also knowing that she's effectively had to face them down and get them on board with the government agenda of trading independently from the EU and act with speed to sign trade deals covering £200bn of our non-EU trade. As I've said before, her good work at the DIT has definitely helped our negotiating stance with the EU. This time last year we had 0% of our international trade covered by tariff free deals and the crash out scenario meant WTO terms for all of our exports, part of the EU's stance on trade was driven by knowing the crash out would be absolutely horrific because we would either have to apply tariffs to all imported goods resulting in 8-12% in price rises or go down the Minford route of having no tariffs at all to avoid the inflation and resulting job losses and poverty it comes with. By fixing that situation it's taken both of those off the table and the EU has realised we could accept tariffs on EU imports/exports as we have huge markets with tariff free access to replace a lot of the existing markets.
Don't just take my word for it, look at how much the EU has moved in the last few weeks on the LPF, they started at unilateral suspension of the deal if the UK failed to stay in lockstep with future EU regulations, now they are proposing arbitration set tariffs for future regression from the current levels. Their position is materially different to where they started, Liz Truss making no deal from a horrific disaster to something we could probably deal with in the medium to long term is part of why they have moved.
That was a long time ago! Before even 1980. However I'm intrigued - who were the people who were against it in 1967 that Harold Wilson wouldn't override and who allegedly Mrs T had to override in 1980?
Aa for the Section 28 laws the Scots abolished them once they got their Pmt back, though 2000 is a bit late in my view. And then things more or less in step, if not sliglty before if this is correct
It's not that long ago for those of us who remember it!
Until recently Scotland was more socially conservative than England, perhaps because of the influence of both the Catholic Church (especially in Glasgow and surrounding areas), and the various Presbyterian-based protestant churches. Of course that influence was declining in the 1970s and 1980s (as elsewhere), but it's simply not true that Scotland was more 'progressive' than England. I'm not even sure it's true now, surveys seem to show little if any difference nowadays.
I think that's fair enough - much of a muchness after a rather sudden catchup sometime around 1980-90 or whenever those of us who were on the scene perceived it. It's certainly changed a lot.
BTW my 'progressive' was meant to apply not to the earlier period but to the Scottish Pmt period - insofar as there are any diffeences such as repealing Sec28 a bit earlier. Certainly compared to the past - it's not as if they used devolition to row back.
With Theresa May those same civil servants were known to be dragging their feet to try and force the unsatisfactory customs union solution (I have this from someone who worked there under Liam Fox) by resisting signing third party deals as "unnecessary" due to an impending customs union deal to be negotiated by the Brexit department. I've been told that they literally pushed that agenda and resisted rolling over existing trade deals to leave the Brexit team no choice but to go for the customs union option as that would be the only way for the UK to trade freely with non-EU countries. Unsurprisingly she quit.
It's why I've been even more impressed with Liz Truss than most, knowing the internal agenda of the department and also knowing that she's effectively had to face them down and get them on board with the government agenda of trading independently from the EU and act with speed to sign trade deals covering £200bn of our non-EU trade. As I've said before, her good work at the DIT has definitely helped our negotiating stance with the EU. This time last year we had 0% of our international trade covered by tariff free deals and the crash out scenario meant WTO terms for all of our exports, part of the EU's stance on trade was driven by knowing the crash out would be absolutely horrific because we would either have to apply tariffs to all imported goods resulting in 8-12% in price rises or go down the Minford route of having no tariffs at all to avoid the inflation and resulting job losses and poverty it comes with. By fixing that situation it's taken both of those off the table and the EU has realised we could accept tariffs on EU imports/exports as we have huge markets with tariff free access to replace a lot of the existing markets.
Don't just take my word for it, look at how much the EU has moved in the last few weeks on the LPF, they started at unilateral suspension of the deal if the UK failed to stay in lockstep with future EU regulations, now they are proposing arbitration set tariffs for future regression from the current levels. Their position is materially different to where they started, Liz Truss making no deal from a horrific disaster to something we could probably deal with in the medium to long term is part of why they have moved.
Well, Liam Fox is of course serially useless, so it's not surprising that little progress was made under him, especially since he's obsessed with the US. But I don't think that was the whole story - you have to remember that the future shape of the UK's long-term relationship with the EU was very unclear in the hung parliament, and no country could negotiate a rollover deal without having at least a pretty firm idea of where we were headed. So your characterisation of the attitude of the civil servants is unfair; how could they negotiate in the dark?
As for the LPF, the EU's position looks much the same as it has since March, but I'm delighted that Brexiteers think that they've made some big concessions.
So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I thought the whole point of Brexit was to allow things to change, yet the government seem to be boasting about keeping things exactly as they are. What was the point, then?
Liz Truss is definitely on the march in the background. Dry as a bone, successes with trade deals, and playing up to the red wall with her speech today.
Maybe the country will want a fresh start if this nightmare ever ends.
I`ve a few quid on her . But I can`t really see her being one of the two MPs that go on to be voted on by the membership.
Right now, she's pushing all the right buttons for me. And showing leadership.
But, she hasn't yet held a Great Office of State.
I'd like to see her take over at the Home Office. So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I'm sure she could apply the same grit against vested interests at the Home Office and reform the HRA and take on the activist lawyer base that thrive on finding loopholes in it for criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
Max, I really don't think that any 'vested interests' have been trying to stop us rolling over existing EU trade agreements. In fact, it has of course been those very same entrenched civil servants who have actually done the negotiation to make sure it happens. Liz Truss deserves credit for overseeing that process, and doesn't seem to have screwed anything up, which is good, but let's not over-state things.
Interesting speech on inequality, though. I'm quite impressed by that.
With Theresa May those same civil servants were known to be dragging their feet to try and force the unsatisfactory customs union solution (I have this from someone who worked there under Liam Fox) by resisting signing third party deals as "unnecessary" due to an impending customs union deal to be negotiated by the Brexit department. I've been told that they literally pushed that agenda and resisted rolling over existing trade deals to leave the Brexit team no choice but to go for the customs union option as that would be the only way for the UK to trade freely with non-EU countries. Unsurprisingly she quit.
It's why I've been even more impressed with Liz Truss than most, knowing the internal agenda of the department and also knowing that she's effectively had to face them down and get them on board with the government agenda of trading independently from the EU and act with speed to sign trade deals covering £200bn of our non-EU trade. As I've said before, her good work at the DIT has definitely helped our negotiating stance with the EU. This time last year we had 0% of our international trade covered by tariff free deals and the crash out scenario meant WTO terms for all of our exports, part of the EU's stance on trade was driven by knowing the crash out would be absolutely horrific because we would either have to apply tariffs to all imported goods resulting in 8-12% in price rises or go down the Minford route of having no tariffs at all to avoid the inflation and resulting job losses and poverty it comes with. By fixing that situation it's taken both of those off the table and the EU has realised we could accept tariffs on EU imports/exports as we have huge markets with tariff free access to replace a lot of the existing markets.
Don't just take my word for it, look at how much the EU has moved in the last few weeks on the LPF, they started at unilateral suspension of the deal if the UK failed to stay in lockstep with future EU regulations, now they are proposing arbitration set tariffs for future regression from the current levels. Their position is materially different to where they started, Liz Truss making no deal from a horrific disaster to something we could probably deal with in the medium to long term is part of why they have moved.
Alternatively, Liam Fox was just rubbish.
He definitely was, there's no doubt about it, but some of her stories about how they basically resisted any moves to begin the rollover process with existing trade partners was quite something. It obviously suited Liam Fox to not bother with existing trade deals because it gave him time to suck Trump's dick for a few years.
Liz Truss is definitely on the march in the background. Dry as a bone, successes with trade deals, and playing up to the red wall with her speech today.
Maybe the country will want a fresh start if this nightmare ever ends.
I`ve a few quid on her . But I can`t really see her being one of the two MPs that go on to be voted on by the membership.
Right now, she's pushing all the right buttons for me. And showing leadership.
But, she hasn't yet held a Great Office of State.
I'd like to see her take over at the Home Office. So far she's quietly got on with making big advancements to our overseas trade policy with very little fanfare or controversy against a lot of entrenched management desperate to cling on to the EU and the old ways of Britain not standing alone forging it's own path.
I'm sure she could apply the same grit against vested interests at the Home Office and reform the HRA and take on the activist lawyer base that thrive on finding loopholes in it for criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
Max, I really don't think that any 'vested interests' have been trying to stop us rolling over existing EU trade agreements. In fact, it has of course been those very same entrenched civil servants who have actually done the negotiation to make sure it happens. Liz Truss deserves credit for overseeing that process, and doesn't seem to have screwed anything up, which is good, but let's not over-state things.
Interesting speech on inequality, though. I'm quite impressed by that.
With Theresa May those same civil servants were known to be dragging their feet to try and force the unsatisfactory customs union solution (I have this from someone who worked there under Liam Fox) by resisting signing third party deals as "unnecessary" due to an impending customs union deal to be negotiated by the Brexit department. I've been told that they literally pushed that agenda and resisted rolling over existing trade deals to leave the Brexit team no choice but to go for the customs union option as that would be the only way for the UK to trade freely with non-EU countries. Unsurprisingly she quit.
It's why I've been even more impressed with Liz Truss than most, knowing the internal agenda of the department and also knowing that she's effectively had to face them down and get them on board with the government agenda of trading independently from the EU and act with speed to sign trade deals covering £200bn of our non-EU trade. As I've said before, her good work at the DIT has definitely helped our negotiating stance with the EU. This time last year we had 0% of our international trade covered by tariff free deals and the crash out scenario meant WTO terms for all of our exports, part of the EU's stance on trade was driven by knowing the crash out would be absolutely horrific because we would either have to apply tariffs to all imported goods resulting in 8-12% in price rises or go down the Minford route of having no tariffs at all to avoid the inflation and resulting job losses and poverty it comes with. By fixing that situation it's taken both of those off the table and the EU has realised we could accept tariffs on EU imports/exports as we have huge markets with tariff free access to replace a lot of the existing markets.
Don't just take my word for it, look at how much the EU has moved in the last few weeks on the LPF, they started at unilateral suspension of the deal if the UK failed to stay in lockstep with future EU regulations, now they are proposing arbitration set tariffs for future regression from the current levels. Their position is materially different to where they started, Liz Truss making no deal from a horrific disaster to something we could probably deal with in the medium to long term is part of why they have moved.
Alternatively, Liam Fox was just rubbish.
He definitely was, there's no doubt about it, but some of her stories about how they basically resisted any moves to begin the rollover process with existing trade partners was quite something. It obviously suited Liam Fox to not bother with existing trade deals because it gave him time to suck Trump's dick for a few years.
Which comes back to my point of agreement on the Home Office. We'd get to see if she's anything more than competent (though I'll grant that alone would make her stand out somewhat in the current cabinet).
I see the Mail has flipped from why isn't Boris cancelling Christmas, he is going to kill us all, to these lockdown tiers are an outrage....all in the space of a day.
The thing that got me was how many people kept insisting one was either unlikely or would take far too long. They had it sequenced in January. They'd trialled well over a hundred in vitro successfully by March. By April, we saw very promising results for most or all of them in animals and volunteers were getting jabbed in Phase 1 studies.
We were kept apprised of Phase 1 and Phase 2 results and their success against SARS-CoV-2 and we knew when the Phase 3 tests were due to report.
The fact that a load of people even in Whitehall seemed intent on dismissing it as implausible or highly unlikely (or simply not going to happen) as late as September and October was staggering.
And, of course, the media and the various polemicists, but I rather expected them.
This wasn't remotely a surprise. Wonderful, yes, but something we watched coming down the tracks all year.
The thing that got me was how many people kept insisting one was either unlikely or would take far too long. They had it sequenced in January. They'd trialled well over a hundred in vitro successfully by March. By April, we saw very promising results for most or all of them in animals and volunteers were getting jabbed in Phase 1 studies.
We were kept apprised of Phase 1 and Phase 2 results and their success against SARS-CoV-2 and we knew when the Phase 3 tests were due to report.
The fact that a load of people even in Whitehall seemed intent on dismissing it as implausible or highly unlikely (or simply not going to happen) as late as September and October was staggering.
And, of course, the media and the various polemicists, but I rather expected them.
This wasn't remotely a surprise. Wonderful, yes, but something we watched coming down the tracks all year.
Must admit I was sceptical we would get a working vaccine before next year. Hence my occasional moan about the lockdown system and support to look more at what sweden was doing.
The thing that got me was how many people kept insisting one was either unlikely or would take far too long. They had it sequenced in January. They'd trialled well over a hundred in vitro successfully by March. By April, we saw very promising results for most or all of them in animals and volunteers were getting jabbed in Phase 1 studies.
We were kept apprised of Phase 1 and Phase 2 results and their success against SARS-CoV-2 and we knew when the Phase 3 tests were due to report.
The fact that a load of people even in Whitehall seemed intent on dismissing it as implausible or highly unlikely (or simply not going to happen) as late as September and October was staggering.
And, of course, the media and the various polemicists, but I rather expected them.
This wasn't remotely a surprise. Wonderful, yes, but something we watched coming down the tracks all year.
Must admit I was sceptical we would get a working vaccine before next year. Hence my occasional moan about the lockdown system and support to look more at what sweden was doing.
It's probably only human to believe it would be too good to be true, but I've heard second-hand reports of a number of people in Whitehall laughing at Hancock "because he's the only person around here who actually believes a vaccine will save us."
These are people who, to me, bloody well should have known a hell of a lot better.
The thing that got me was how many people kept insisting one was either unlikely or would take far too long. They had it sequenced in January. They'd trialled well over a hundred in vitro successfully by March. By April, we saw very promising results for most or all of them in animals and volunteers were getting jabbed in Phase 1 studies.
We were kept apprised of Phase 1 and Phase 2 results and their success against SARS-CoV-2 and we knew when the Phase 3 tests were due to report.
The fact that a load of people even in Whitehall seemed intent on dismissing it as implausible or highly unlikely (or simply not going to happen) as late as September and October was staggering.
And, of course, the media and the various polemicists, but I rather expected them.
This wasn't remotely a surprise. Wonderful, yes, but something we watched coming down the tracks all year.
I don't think that's quite right, because there was a lot that could have gone wrong and could have caused major delays. As things have turned out, we seem to have been very lucky indeed: the first two vaccines were not only produced quite amazingly fast, but they also seem to be both exceptionally effective and very safe. If they'd hit problems like the ones the Australian candidate did, or like the GSK/Sanofi one which is going to be substantially delayed, we might easily have had to wait many months more.
I see the Mail has flipped from why isn't Boris cancelling Christmas, he is going to kill us all, to these lockdown tiers are an outrage....all in the space of a day.
In fairness schizophrenia and multiple personalities probably at least doubles their readership.
The thing that got me was how many people kept insisting one was either unlikely or would take far too long. They had it sequenced in January. They'd trialled well over a hundred in vitro successfully by March. By April, we saw very promising results for most or all of them in animals and volunteers were getting jabbed in Phase 1 studies.
We were kept apprised of Phase 1 and Phase 2 results and their success against SARS-CoV-2 and we knew when the Phase 3 tests were due to report.
The fact that a load of people even in Whitehall seemed intent on dismissing it as implausible or highly unlikely (or simply not going to happen) as late as September and October was staggering.
And, of course, the media and the various polemicists, but I rather expected them.
This wasn't remotely a surprise. Wonderful, yes, but something we watched coming down the tracks all year.
I don't think that's quite right, because there was a lot that could have gone wrong and could have caused major delays. As things have turned out, we seem to have been very lucky indeed: the first two vaccines were not only produced quite amazingly fast, but they also seem to be both exceptionally effective and very safe. If they'd hit problems like the ones the Australian candidate did, or like the GSK/Sanofi one which is going to be substantially delayed, we might easily have had to wait many months more.
And we only need to compared this against the frontrunner, which we were told would be done and dusted by September, and then another month and another month and another month...and now going back to do another trial.
With Theresa May those same civil servants were known to be dragging their feet to try and force the unsatisfactory customs union solution (I have this from someone who worked there under Liam Fox) by resisting signing third party deals as "unnecessary" due to an impending customs union deal to be negotiated by the Brexit department. I've been told that they literally pushed that agenda and resisted rolling over existing trade deals to leave the Brexit team no choice but to go for the customs union option as that would be the only way for the UK to trade freely with non-EU countries. Unsurprisingly she quit.
It's why I've been even more impressed with Liz Truss than most, knowing the internal agenda of the department and also knowing that she's effectively had to face them down and get them on board with the government agenda of trading independently from the EU and act with speed to sign trade deals covering £200bn of our non-EU trade. As I've said before, her good work at the DIT has definitely helped our negotiating stance with the EU. This time last year we had 0% of our international trade covered by tariff free deals and the crash out scenario meant WTO terms for all of our exports, part of the EU's stance on trade was driven by knowing the crash out would be absolutely horrific because we would either have to apply tariffs to all imported goods resulting in 8-12% in price rises or go down the Minford route of having no tariffs at all to avoid the inflation and resulting job losses and poverty it comes with. By fixing that situation it's taken both of those off the table and the EU has realised we could accept tariffs on EU imports/exports as we have huge markets with tariff free access to replace a lot of the existing markets.
Don't just take my word for it, look at how much the EU has moved in the last few weeks on the LPF, they started at unilateral suspension of the deal if the UK failed to stay in lockstep with future EU regulations, now they are proposing arbitration set tariffs for future regression from the current levels. Their position is materially different to where they started, Liz Truss making no deal from a horrific disaster to something we could probably deal with in the medium to long term is part of why they have moved.
Well, Liam Fox is of course serially useless, so it's not surprising that little progress was made under him, especially since he's obsessed with the US. But I don't think that was the whole story - you have to remember that the future shape of the UK's long-term relationship with the EU was very unclear in the hung parliament, and no country could negotiate a rollover deal without having at least a pretty firm idea of where we were headed. So your characterisation of the attitude of the civil servants is unfair; how could they negotiate in the dark?
As for the LPF, the EU's position looks much the same as it has since March, but I'm delighted that Brexiteers think that they've made some big concessions.
It is completely different. The June 2020 briefing paper laid out the EU position as full future alignment with unilateral right to suspend the deal if alignment was seen to have been broken. Now it's saying arbitration led tariff setting for areas where the EU deems the UK to have regressed from current standards with neither side having the obligation to follow the other one upwards and defined treaty rules as to what a breach of the LPF is rather than either side unilaterally declaring the other side as breaching it. Once again, you keep spouting the remainer lines of the EU never giving an inch and the UK giving in or being tricked by some EU repackaging, but that's not true. The EU has given huge ground here, whether or not you want to recognise that is irrelevant. Keep that "capitulation" or "being tricked into it" narrative going if it makes you feel better about it, but the reality is that the EU has given huge ground on this.
On the previous position, it was their obstinance on not negotiating extensions of third party trade deals that forced the government into the idiotic customs union idea. Even someone as stupid as Theresa May recognised that we weren't in a position to lose both our EU trade and non-EU trade deals at the same time. Liz Truss has changed the equation and negotiating position for the government in a hugely positive manner. Once again, if you can't see that then it really is your problem.
The thing that got me was how many people kept insisting one was either unlikely or would take far too long. They had it sequenced in January. They'd trialled well over a hundred in vitro successfully by March. By April, we saw very promising results for most or all of them in animals and volunteers were getting jabbed in Phase 1 studies.
We were kept apprised of Phase 1 and Phase 2 results and their success against SARS-CoV-2 and we knew when the Phase 3 tests were due to report.
The fact that a load of people even in Whitehall seemed intent on dismissing it as implausible or highly unlikely (or simply not going to happen) as late as September and October was staggering.
And, of course, the media and the various polemicists, but I rather expected them.
This wasn't remotely a surprise. Wonderful, yes, but something we watched coming down the tracks all year.
I don't think that's quite right, because there was a lot that could have gone wrong and could have caused major delays. As things have turned out, we seem to have been very lucky indeed: the first two vaccines were not only produced quite amazingly fast, but they also seem to be both exceptionally effective and very safe. If they'd hit problems like the ones the Australian candidate did, or like the GSK/Sanofi one which is going to be substantially delayed, we might easily have had to wait many months more.
One thing that I will be very interested to see at the eventual enquiries into COVID, is whether the story I heard comes true....
That ministers have refused to guarantee that they will take responsibility* for actions, decisions and briefing that were *specifically against their instructions*.
So which media outlets are going to report 35k cases and bang on about a million percent increase since yesterday, without any caveat that Wales just dumped 11k cases in a day?
Northern Ireland's doing better than England though. 22,401 cases for England today, up from 17,622 last Thursday. Nearly two thirds of the lockdown effect undone.
I see the Mail has flipped from why isn't Boris cancelling Christmas, he is going to kill us all, to these lockdown tiers are an outrage....all in the space of a day.
In fairness schizophrenia and multiple personalities probably at least doubles their readership.
The thing that got me was how many people kept insisting one was either unlikely or would take far too long. They had it sequenced in January. They'd trialled well over a hundred in vitro successfully by March. By April, we saw very promising results for most or all of them in animals and volunteers were getting jabbed in Phase 1 studies.
We were kept apprised of Phase 1 and Phase 2 results and their success against SARS-CoV-2 and we knew when the Phase 3 tests were due to report.
The fact that a load of people even in Whitehall seemed intent on dismissing it as implausible or highly unlikely (or simply not going to happen) as late as September and October was staggering.
And, of course, the media and the various polemicists, but I rather expected them.
This wasn't remotely a surprise. Wonderful, yes, but something we watched coming down the tracks all year.
I don't think that's quite right, because there was a lot that could have gone wrong and could have caused major delays. As things have turned out, we seem to have been very lucky indeed: the first two vaccines were not only produced quite amazingly fast, but they also seem to be both exceptionally effective and very safe. If they'd hit problems like the ones the Australian candidate did, or like the GSK/Sanofi one which is going to be substantially delayed, we might easily have had to wait many months more.
Though as Andy points out, we had some very promising interim results to go on. The PIII results were a pleasant surprise, but not a massive one.
Incidentally, it seems as though there might be a very small risk of Bell's Palsy* with the Pfizer vaccine - though nothing that would prevent its use.
*Graeme Garden is a well known sufferer - and points out that it's a particularly perversely named condition, as the partial facial paralysis can make it quite hard to pronounce Bs and Ps.
So which media outlets are going to report 35k cases and bang on about a million percent increase since yesterday, without any caveat that Wales just dumped 11k cases in a day?
Yeah you can deduct about 8K from today's number. Still bad though.
The Welsh figures make for dire reading. They can't possibly wait until after Christmas given the data that just got backfilled after the software update. Scotland just about hanging on in the "not bad, not terrible" area, although if people don't listen to the Christmas advice then I might be looking like Comrade Dyatlov.
If they haven't spent it the Treasury should claw it back.
The cheque for those £500 bonuses for those whose jobs have not been at risk during this economic winter don't write themselves you know. Yet more retail jobs to be lost.
Well, we just joined the tier 3 club here in North Herts. That's us locked away until about May or June 2021. It's not really a surprise - we're surrounded by rampant outbreaks of the Plague on three sides - but all the same it's still yet another bloody setback.
My first reaction to that was "Fuck the bastard Government, let's get on the train to Cambridge on Saturday." We won't do it, but I bet a lot of people will. Many will reason that the restrictions are useless so there's no point in obeying them, and they may well have a point. The cause of suppression is hopeless. The disease is too contagious. You might just as well try to suppress the common cold. It's clear that the only means that are effective against it are warm weather and vaccination; otherwise, you're just talking about marginal gains.
The combination of the Christmas free-for-all and the new variant will deal the final coup de grace to the tier system. Lockdown 3.0 is coming, and it'll last all the way until next Summer. People who are worried about getting Covid or passing it on to vulnerable family members will do their largely ineffectual best to manage the risk - I fall into that category, though then again I'm forced to go out to work which means that anything I can do in that regard is of relatively little value - but I find it hard to blame those who aren't in that situation for simply giving up. Almost everyone is being ground down by the pandemic, and if things are bad enough for long enough then we'll all reach the limits of our endurance eventually. It's simply that some people get there faster than others.
We`ve narrowly missed it, though our neighbours, Milton Keynes and Bedford, have both copped it.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the vulnerable are vaccinated - by the end of January for first jab and by the end of February for the second jab?
Therefore, by March things should - should - relax as pressure is lifted from health services and the fear of transmission to vulnerable people recedes. But I fear that the lockdown-boosters, inc some in government and the media, will not relent from a risk-averse view of things, to the further detriment of us all, and the devolved parliaments will continue to monkey around no doubt.
Overall, I `m hopeful. I`m much happier than I was in the spring.
I continue to be astonished by the over-optimism surrounding how quickly the vaccine can be rolled out and how soon it will get us out of jail. Escape by March or April is not a plausible scenario. It will take a bloody age just to get both shots into health and care workers and the very old - there are something like five million of them, each needing two injections, to be got through before you even get as far as the 75-79 group, the shielders don't even get a look in until the 70-74 group are inoculated, and panic about the collapse of the hospitals is going to continue, realistically, until everybody in phase one - i.e. the clinically vulnerable as well as the extremely vulnerable, the NHS, the care workers, and the entire general population over 50 - have all been immunised twice. I am desperate for my husband to move to the front of the queue for the vaccine but, given that the shielders are stuck back in that fourth segment behind the entirety of Shady Pines, the NHS and everyone over 75, I reckon he'll be waiting until March at the very earliest.
The only reason that we are likely to move from total lockdown to something marginally less fucking awful at some point after Easter is warmer, drier weather. The real challenge is getting enough of the population lanced to get out of this unending misery of incarceration, isolation, widespread socio-economic implosion and grotty face masks by next Autumn.
I'm slightly surprised how complicated people think vaccinating 5 million people is. The UK manages five times that number in three months with the annual flu vaccine.
Vaccine availability, not sticking needles in people, is the big issue.
Does the flu vaccination have to be administered to each patient twice, in the middle of a pandemic where the medical profession are spinning round in ever decreasing circles trying to deal with tsunami waves of the dead and dying at the same time, and with all the wretched social distancing requirements, and with each recipient having to be monitored after the jab to make sure they don't turn red, blow up like a balloon and start gasping like a fish out of water because of an ultra-rare allergic reaction?
That + lack of supply + cold chain storage issues + tendency of everything this Government touches to turn to shit = slow, slow, slow. I mean, I'll be absolutely delighted to be proven wrong and be able to burn my horrible mask by mid-March, but the whole 2020 experience teaches one to always, ALWAYS expect everything to turn out badly. Because the development of the vaccines would appear to be just about the only thing that's gone well.
This was always Powell's plan, according to some on the right (not me, I hasten to add) because a libel case might allow for forensic examination of these machines.
The funny bit is, I remember in 2004 the Democrats complaining about how the voting machines (probably including Dominion) were rigged against them.
If I were in the voting machine business (which I'm not), I would personally be concerned with making as much money as possible.
This could be achieved in two ways:
One, have a reputation for having unhackable systems, and therefore secure lots of sales.
Two, offer each party the opportunity to "bid" for extra votes.
More seriously: if there was fraud at the voting machine level, it would be easily discovered by statistical analysis. (1) Did the Democrats perform notably better in places with Dominion voting machines? (2) Were the results in places with Dominion voting machines dramatically different to the polls,
And really, this all falls down - as do all the election conspiracy stuff - with (1). The Democrats did worse in WI/MI/PA than in he rest of the country. It's just that Trump's margin was narrowest there, and they were therefore most likely to flip.
The places with the biggest increases in Biden votes were in the Sunbelt. If you want to look at somewhere and say "Biden's votes seem fishy", I'd start with Texas. How the hell did Biden get 38% more votes than Clinton did in Texas?
I see the Mail has flipped from why isn't Boris cancelling Christmas, he is going to kill us all, to these lockdown tiers are an outrage....all in the space of a day.
In fairness schizophrenia and multiple personalities probably at least doubles their readership.
With Theresa May those same civil servants were known to be dragging their feet to try and force the unsatisfactory customs union solution (I have this from someone who worked there under Liam Fox) by resisting signing third party deals as "unnecessary" due to an impending customs union deal to be negotiated by the Brexit department. I've been told that they literally pushed that agenda and resisted rolling over existing trade deals to leave the Brexit team no choice but to go for the customs union option as that would be the only way for the UK to trade freely with non-EU countries. Unsurprisingly she quit.
It's why I've been even more impressed with Liz Truss than most, knowing the internal agenda of the department and also knowing that she's effectively had to face them down and get them on board with the government agenda of trading independently from the EU and act with speed to sign trade deals covering £200bn of our non-EU trade. As I've said before, her good work at the DIT has definitely helped our negotiating stance with the EU. This time last year we had 0% of our international trade covered by tariff free deals and the crash out scenario meant WTO terms for all of our exports, part of the EU's stance on trade was driven by knowing the crash out would be absolutely horrific because we would either have to apply tariffs to all imported goods resulting in 8-12% in price rises or go down the Minford route of having no tariffs at all to avoid the inflation and resulting job losses and poverty it comes with. By fixing that situation it's taken both of those off the table and the EU has realised we could accept tariffs on EU imports/exports as we have huge markets with tariff free access to replace a lot of the existing markets.
Don't just take my word for it, look at how much the EU has moved in the last few weeks on the LPF, they started at unilateral suspension of the deal if the UK failed to stay in lockstep with future EU regulations, now they are proposing arbitration set tariffs for future regression from the current levels. Their position is materially different to where they started, Liz Truss making no deal from a horrific disaster to something we could probably deal with in the medium to long term is part of why they have moved.
Well, Liam Fox is of course serially useless, so it's not surprising that little progress was made under him, especially since he's obsessed with the US. But I don't think that was the whole story - you have to remember that the future shape of the UK's long-term relationship with the EU was very unclear in the hung parliament, and no country could negotiate a rollover deal without having at least a pretty firm idea of where we were headed. So your characterisation of the attitude of the civil servants is unfair; how could they negotiate in the dark?
As for the LPF, the EU's position looks much the same as it has since March, but I'm delighted that Brexiteers think that they've made some big concessions.
It is completely different. The June 2020 briefing paper laid out the EU position as full future alignment with unilateral right to suspend the deal if alignment was seen to have been broken. Now it's saying arbitration led tariff setting for areas where the EU deems the UK to have regressed from current standards with neither side having the obligation to follow the other one upwards and defined treaty rules as to what a breach of the LPF is rather than either side unilaterally declaring the other side as breaching it. Once again, you keep spouting the remainer lines of the EU never giving an inch and the UK giving in or being tricked by some EU repackaging, but that's not true. The EU has given huge ground here, whether or not you want to recognise that is irrelevant. Keep that "capitulation" or "being tricked into it" narrative going if it makes you feel better about it, but the reality is that the EU has given huge ground on this.
On the previous position, it was their obstinance on not negotiating extensions of third party trade deals that forced the government into the idiotic customs union idea. Even someone as stupid as Theresa May recognised that we weren't in a position to lose both our EU trade and non-EU trade deals at the same time. Liz Truss has changed the equation and negotiating position for the government in a hugely positive manner. Once again, if you can't see that then it really is your problem.
I think some people simply can't process the fact the EU's made concessions because it goes totally against their world view.
I see the Mail has flipped from why isn't Boris cancelling Christmas, he is going to kill us all, to these lockdown tiers are an outrage....all in the space of a day.
In fairness schizophrenia and multiple personalities probably at least doubles their readership.
It is completely different. The June 2020 briefing paper laid out the EU position as full future alignment with unilateral right to suspend the deal if alignment was seen to have been broken. Now it's saying arbitration led tariff setting for areas where the EU deems the UK to have regressed from current standards with neither side having the obligation to follow the other one upwards and defined treaty rules as to what a breach of the LPF is rather than either side unilaterally declaring the other side as breaching it. Once again, you keep spouting the remainer lines of the EU never giving an inch and the UK giving in or being tricked by some EU repackaging, but that's not true. The EU has given huge ground here, whether or not you want to recognise that is irrelevant. Keep that "capitulation" or "being tricked into it" narrative going if it makes you feel better about it, but the reality is that the EU has given huge ground on this.
I'm delighted you think that, but I can read. For example, from this authoritative 3rd June summary:
EU position:
Non-regression would mean that the level of protection in these areas should not be reduced from common standards applicable within the EU and UK at the end of the transition period. In addition, the EU proposes giving the governing body powers to modify the commitments to reflect evolving standards in most areas of LPF. Commitments would be subject to strong enforcement mechanisms domestically and dispute settlement within the treaty governance framework.
UK position:
The UK has proposed FTA chapters on environmental and labour standards with reciprocal commitments not to weaken protections, and on subsidies (reciprocal commitments to transparency), competition policy (commitments to maintain effective competition laws) and tax policy (commitments to good tax governance). In line with precedents in other EU FTAs all provisions should not be subject to the FTA’s dispute resolution mechanism.
I see the Mail has flipped from why isn't Boris cancelling Christmas, he is going to kill us all, to these lockdown tiers are an outrage....all in the space of a day.
In fairness schizophrenia and multiple personalities probably at least doubles their readership.
"Oxford vaccine produces good immune response after two doses
The potential COVID-19 vaccine stimulates broad antibody and T-cell responses when doses are given, according to the latest results from Phase Two and Three clinical trials. "The booster doses of the vaccine are both shown to induce stronger antibody responses than a single dose, the standard dose/standard dose inducing the best response," the university said. The vaccine is currently being reviewed by regulators."
So they are now saying that full-full is better than half-full? Eh?
The thing that got me was how many people kept insisting one was either unlikely or would take far too long. They had it sequenced in January. They'd trialled well over a hundred in vitro successfully by March. By April, we saw very promising results for most or all of them in animals and volunteers were getting jabbed in Phase 1 studies.
We were kept apprised of Phase 1 and Phase 2 results and their success against SARS-CoV-2 and we knew when the Phase 3 tests were due to report.
The fact that a load of people even in Whitehall seemed intent on dismissing it as implausible or highly unlikely (or simply not going to happen) as late as September and October was staggering.
And, of course, the media and the various polemicists, but I rather expected them.
This wasn't remotely a surprise. Wonderful, yes, but something we watched coming down the tracks all year.
I don't think that's quite right, because there was a lot that could have gone wrong and could have caused major delays. As things have turned out, we seem to have been very lucky indeed: the first two vaccines were not only produced quite amazingly fast, but they also seem to be both exceptionally effective and very safe. If they'd hit problems like the ones the Australian candidate did, or like the GSK/Sanofi one which is going to be substantially delayed, we might easily have had to wait many months more.
By the time they get through to Phase 3, most vaccines do get through.
We'd have needed Pfizer, Moderna, and Oxford/Astrazeneca to all have problems. That was unlikely. And we will probably have Johnson & Johnson reporting in January, and Novavax not long after that.
Given the positive results all had shown in Phase 2 (and bear in mind that GSK/Sanofi had their problems in Phase 1/2), we'd have been very unlucky for that to happen.
I see the Mail has flipped from why isn't Boris cancelling Christmas, he is going to kill us all, to these lockdown tiers are an outrage....all in the space of a day.
In fairness schizophrenia and multiple personalities probably at least doubles their readership.
"Oxford vaccine produces good immune response after two doses
The potential COVID-19 vaccine stimulates broad antibody and T-cell responses when doses are given, according to the latest results from Phase Two and Three clinical trials. "The booster doses of the vaccine are both shown to induce stronger antibody responses than a single dose, the standard dose/standard dose inducing the best response," the university said. The vaccine is currently being reviewed by regulators."
So they are now saying that full-full is better than half-full? Eh?
Yes....
Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate has a better immune response when a two full-dose regime is used rather than a full-dose followed by a half-dose booster, the university said on Thursday.
The vaccine candidate, which has been licensed to AstraZeneca, has published interim late stage trial results showing higher efficacy when a half dose is followed by a full dose, compared to a two full-dose regime, though more work needs to be done to affirm the result.
---
Head in hands...if only they had done their trials properly.
"Oxford vaccine produces good immune response after two doses
The potential COVID-19 vaccine stimulates broad antibody and T-cell responses when doses are given, according to the latest results from Phase Two and Three clinical trials. "The booster doses of the vaccine are both shown to induce stronger antibody responses than a single dose, the standard dose/standard dose inducing the best response," the university said. The vaccine is currently being reviewed by regulators."
So they are now saying that full-full is better than half-full? Eh?
Can't tell anything from that little snippet. Need to wait for the full release.
"Oxford vaccine produces good immune response after two doses
The potential COVID-19 vaccine stimulates broad antibody and T-cell responses when doses are given, according to the latest results from Phase Two and Three clinical trials. "The booster doses of the vaccine are both shown to induce stronger antibody responses than a single dose, the standard dose/standard dose inducing the best response," the university said. The vaccine is currently being reviewed by regulators."
So they are now saying that full-full is better than half-full? Eh?
Yes....
Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate has a better immune response when a two full-dose regime is used rather than a full-dose followed by a half-dose booster, the university said on Thursday.
The vaccine candidate, which has been licensed to AstraZeneca, has published interim late stage trial results showing higher efficacy when a half dose is followed by a full dose, compared to a two full-dose regime, though more work needs to be done to affirm the result.
---
Head in hands...if only they had done their trials properly.
This sounds like something they did intentionally tbf rather than a cockup, if only because the booster dose is later than the initial dose.
With Theresa May those same civil servants were known to be dragging their feet to try and force the unsatisfactory customs union solution (I have this from someone who worked there under Liam Fox) by resisting signing third party deals as "unnecessary" due to an impending customs union deal to be negotiated by the Brexit department. I've been told that they literally pushed that agenda and resisted rolling over existing trade deals to leave the Brexit team no choice but to go for the customs union option as that would be the only way for the UK to trade freely with non-EU countries. Unsurprisingly she quit.
It's why I've been even more impressed with Liz Truss than most, knowing the internal agenda of the department and also knowing that she's effectively had to face them down and get them on board with the government agenda of trading independently from the EU and act with speed to sign trade deals covering £200bn of our non-EU trade. As I've said before, her good work at the DIT has definitely helped our negotiating stance with the EU. This time last year we had 0% of our international trade covered by tariff free deals and the crash out scenario meant WTO terms for all of our exports, part of the EU's stance on trade was driven by knowing the crash out would be absolutely horrific because we would either have to apply tariffs to all imported goods resulting in 8-12% in price rises or go down the Minford route of having no tariffs at all to avoid the inflation and resulting job losses and poverty it comes with. By fixing that situation it's taken both of those off the table and the EU has realised we could accept tariffs on EU imports/exports as we have huge markets with tariff free access to replace a lot of the existing markets.
Don't just take my word for it, look at how much the EU has moved in the last few weeks on the LPF, they started at unilateral suspension of the deal if the UK failed to stay in lockstep with future EU regulations, now they are proposing arbitration set tariffs for future regression from the current levels. Their position is materially different to where they started, Liz Truss making no deal from a horrific disaster to something we could probably deal with in the medium to long term is part of why they have moved.
Well, Liam Fox is of course serially useless, so it's not surprising that little progress was made under him, especially since he's obsessed with the US. But I don't think that was the whole story - you have to remember that the future shape of the UK's long-term relationship with the EU was very unclear in the hung parliament, and no country could negotiate a rollover deal without having at least a pretty firm idea of where we were headed. So your characterisation of the attitude of the civil servants is unfair; how could they negotiate in the dark?
As for the LPF, the EU's position looks much the same as it has since March, but I'm delighted that Brexiteers think that they've made some big concessions.
It is completely different. The June 2020 briefing paper laid out the EU position as full future alignment with unilateral right to suspend the deal if alignment was seen to have been broken. Now it's saying arbitration led tariff setting for areas where the EU deems the UK to have regressed from current standards with neither side having the obligation to follow the other one upwards and defined treaty rules as to what a breach of the LPF is rather than either side unilaterally declaring the other side as breaching it. Once again, you keep spouting the remainer lines of the EU never giving an inch and the UK giving in or being tricked by some EU repackaging, but that's not true. The EU has given huge ground here, whether or not you want to recognise that is irrelevant. Keep that "capitulation" or "being tricked into it" narrative going if it makes you feel better about it, but the reality is that the EU has given huge ground on this.
On the previous position, it was their obstinance on not negotiating extensions of third party trade deals that forced the government into the idiotic customs union idea. Even someone as stupid as Theresa May recognised that we weren't in a position to lose both our EU trade and non-EU trade deals at the same time. Liz Truss has changed the equation and negotiating position for the government in a hugely positive manner. Once again, if you can't see that then it really is your problem.
I think some people simply can't process the fact the EU's made concessions because it goes totally against their world view.
I don't think it's as binary as that. It seems to me that the EU position progressively hardened as we dithered (with a significant step change after the May deal was rejected) and they have now rowed back somewhat. I'm far from convinced that all of this had to be left until two minutes to midnight. but of course there's no way to test alternative histories, and people will believe what they believe.
So which media outlets are going to report 35k cases and bang on about a million percent increase since yesterday, without any caveat that Wales just dumped 11k cases in a day?
Strip out the 11k and these are still pretty awful figures.
The plain truth is that nothing less than tier 3 works (and even that is losing its efficacy). If you give tier 2 to areas with low levels of infection they will increase. Its that simple. 3 just about holds the line but increasingly not quite. We need to vaccinate and hope that also stops transmission. We cannot beat this virus otherwise.
I see the Mail has flipped from why isn't Boris cancelling Christmas, he is going to kill us all, to these lockdown tiers are an outrage....all in the space of a day.
In fairness schizophrenia and multiple personalities probably at least doubles their readership.
Google Waives $1.5 Billion DeepMind Loan as AI Costs Mount
Alphabet Inc.’s Google waived a 1.1 billion-pound loan ($1.5 billion) to DeepMind Technologies Ltd. in 2019 after the U.K.-based artificial intelligence lab continued to ramp up the scale of its research and development.
"Oxford vaccine produces good immune response after two doses
The potential COVID-19 vaccine stimulates broad antibody and T-cell responses when doses are given, according to the latest results from Phase Two and Three clinical trials. "The booster doses of the vaccine are both shown to induce stronger antibody responses than a single dose, the standard dose/standard dose inducing the best response," the university said. The vaccine is currently being reviewed by regulators."
So they are now saying that full-full is better than half-full? Eh?
Yes....
Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate has a better immune response when a two full-dose regime is used rather than a full-dose followed by a half-dose booster, the university said on Thursday.
The vaccine candidate, which has been licensed to AstraZeneca, has published interim late stage trial results showing higher efficacy when a half dose is followed by a full dose, compared to a two full-dose regime, though more work needs to be done to affirm the result.
---
Head in hands...if only they had done their trials properly.
I know, I know.
I suspect this is where the government's plan for a mahoosive vaccination of the public gets slowed down because of the trials not being properly.
With Theresa May those same civil servants were known to be dragging their feet to try and force the unsatisfactory customs union solution (I have this from someone who worked there under Liam Fox) by resisting signing third party deals as "unnecessary" due to an impending customs union deal to be negotiated by the Brexit department. I've been told that they literally pushed that agenda and resisted rolling over existing trade deals to leave the Brexit team no choice but to go for the customs union option as that would be the only way for the UK to trade freely with non-EU countries. Unsurprisingly she quit.
It's why I've been even more impressed with Liz Truss than most, knowing the internal agenda of the department and also knowing that she's effectively had to face them down and get them on board with the government agenda of trading independently from the EU and act with speed to sign trade deals covering £200bn of our non-EU trade. As I've said before, her good work at the DIT has definitely helped our negotiating stance with the EU. This time last year we had 0% of our international trade covered by tariff free deals and the crash out scenario meant WTO terms for all of our exports, part of the EU's stance on trade was driven by knowing the crash out would be absolutely horrific because we would either have to apply tariffs to all imported goods resulting in 8-12% in price rises or go down the Minford route of having no tariffs at all to avoid the inflation and resulting job losses and poverty it comes with. By fixing that situation it's taken both of those off the table and the EU has realised we could accept tariffs on EU imports/exports as we have huge markets with tariff free access to replace a lot of the existing markets.
Don't just take my word for it, look at how much the EU has moved in the last few weeks on the LPF, they started at unilateral suspension of the deal if the UK failed to stay in lockstep with future EU regulations, now they are proposing arbitration set tariffs for future regression from the current levels. Their position is materially different to where they started, Liz Truss making no deal from a horrific disaster to something we could probably deal with in the medium to long term is part of why they have moved.
Well, Liam Fox is of course serially useless, so it's not surprising that little progress was made under him, especially since he's obsessed with the US. But I don't think that was the whole story - you have to remember that the future shape of the UK's long-term relationship with the EU was very unclear in the hung parliament, and no country could negotiate a rollover deal without having at least a pretty firm idea of where we were headed. So your characterisation of the attitude of the civil servants is unfair; how could they negotiate in the dark?
As for the LPF, the EU's position looks much the same as it has since March, but I'm delighted that Brexiteers think that they've made some big concessions.
It is completely different. The June 2020 briefing paper laid out the EU position as full future alignment with unilateral right to suspend the deal if alignment was seen to have been broken. Now it's saying arbitration led tariff setting for areas where the EU deems the UK to have regressed from current standards with neither side having the obligation to follow the other one upwards and defined treaty rules as to what a breach of the LPF is rather than either side unilaterally declaring the other side as breaching it. Once again, you keep spouting the remainer lines of the EU never giving an inch and the UK giving in or being tricked by some EU repackaging, but that's not true. The EU has given huge ground here, whether or not you want to recognise that is irrelevant. Keep that "capitulation" or "being tricked into it" narrative going if it makes you feel better about it, but the reality is that the EU has given huge ground on this.
On the previous position, it was their obstinance on not negotiating extensions of third party trade deals that forced the government into the idiotic customs union idea. Even someone as stupid as Theresa May recognised that we weren't in a position to lose both our EU trade and non-EU trade deals at the same time. Liz Truss has changed the equation and negotiating position for the government in a hugely positive manner. Once again, if you can't see that then it really is your problem.
I think some people simply can't process the fact the EU's made concessions because it goes totally against their world view.
I don't think it's as binary as that. It seems to me that the EU position progressively hardened as we dithered (with a significant step change after the May deal was rejected) and they have now rowed back somewhat. I'm far from convinced that all of this had to be left until two minutes to midnight. but of course there's no way to test alternative histories, and people will believe what they believe.
I would say that MaxPB is right - and I am a Remainer.
The total effect of the UK Government actions until quite recently has been to give the impression that they were desperate for *any* deal and would take *any* deal rather than no deal.
The last minute Macron intervention over fish should be seen in that light - he thought he could pull a significant victory for France by betting on *any* deal.
It is one of the paradoxes of basic Game Theory that refusing to confront or prepare for an option can make that option a nearly inevitable outcome.
"Oxford vaccine produces good immune response after two doses
The potential COVID-19 vaccine stimulates broad antibody and T-cell responses when doses are given, according to the latest results from Phase Two and Three clinical trials. "The booster doses of the vaccine are both shown to induce stronger antibody responses than a single dose, the standard dose/standard dose inducing the best response," the university said. The vaccine is currently being reviewed by regulators."
So they are now saying that full-full is better than half-full? Eh?
Yes....
Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate has a better immune response when a two full-dose regime is used rather than a full-dose followed by a half-dose booster, the university said on Thursday.
The vaccine candidate, which has been licensed to AstraZeneca, has published interim late stage trial results showing higher efficacy when a half dose is followed by a full dose, compared to a two full-dose regime, though more work needs to be done to affirm the result.
---
Head in hands...if only they had done their trials properly.
I know, I know.
I suspect this is where the government's plan for a mahoosive vaccination of the public gets slowed down because of the trials not being properly.
Not sure if the omission of "conducted" was a very high level joke or not...
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-55345020
So there is no clear indication yet from the data that infection rates have accelerated following the Thanksgiving holiday. The rate of growth of infections has remained about the same as in the weeks before the holiday......
It’s also too early to assess the impact on deaths as they can occur several weeks after infection. Experts say we may still be a week or so away from seeing the true impact – if any – of the Thanksgiving holiday.
The Covid Tracking Project, which monitors coronavirus statistics in the US, urged caution over drawing any conclusions from the recent data, saying: “Given the high rates of pre-holiday disease transmission, it'll be tricky to perfectly distinguish which events cause the spikes.
In my day that was the teachers after a Friday liquid lunch.
I'm sure she could apply the same grit against vested interests at the Home Office and reform the HRA and take on the activist lawyer base that thrive on finding loopholes in it for criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in this country.
It had to accept what was imposed by the Secretary of State, and in such circumstances the people whose views most counted would have been the SCUP?
It was on the whole progressive in such matters come 1997 and devolution.
So when does my son go back? Because he's come home from school today for the holidays and as far as anyone including his teachers know its Monday 5th...
Interesting speech on inequality, though. I'm quite impressed by that.
Philip Davies MP "furious."
I thought that was his default setting.
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18952291.philip-davies-furious-decision-keep-bradford-tier-3/?ref=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
If the government does well over the next six months, there won't be a vacancy.
If the government does badly enough for the PM to have to go, being part of his Cabinet will be a massive black mark against her.
Whether she is potential leadership material is another question. Dunno.
A working vaccine changes the dynamics.
Aa for the Section 28 laws the Scots abolished them once they got their Pmt back, though 2000 is a bit late in my view. And then things more or less in step, if not sliglty before if this is correct
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304072311/http://news.stv.tv/scotland/1320036-scotland-named-best-country-in-europe-for-lgbti-legal-equality/
It's why I've been even more impressed with Liz Truss than most, knowing the internal agenda of the department and also knowing that she's effectively had to face them down and get them on board with the government agenda of trading independently from the EU and act with speed to sign trade deals covering £200bn of our non-EU trade. As I've said before, her good work at the DIT has definitely helped our negotiating stance with the EU. This time last year we had 0% of our international trade covered by tariff free deals and the crash out scenario meant WTO terms for all of our exports, part of the EU's stance on trade was driven by knowing the crash out would be absolutely horrific because we would either have to apply tariffs to all imported goods resulting in 8-12% in price rises or go down the Minford route of having no tariffs at all to avoid the inflation and resulting job losses and poverty it comes with. By fixing that situation it's taken both of those off the table and the EU has realised we could accept tariffs on EU imports/exports as we have huge markets with tariff free access to replace a lot of the existing markets.
Don't just take my word for it, look at how much the EU has moved in the last few weeks on the LPF, they started at unilateral suspension of the deal if the UK failed to stay in lockstep with future EU regulations, now they are proposing arbitration set tariffs for future regression from the current levels. Their position is materially different to where they started, Liz Truss making no deal from a horrific disaster to something we could probably deal with in the medium to long term is part of why they have moved.
Until recently Scotland was more socially conservative than England, perhaps because of the influence of both the Catholic Church (especially in Glasgow and surrounding areas), and the various Presbyterian-based protestant churches. Of course that influence was declining in the 1970s and 1980s (as elsewhere), but it's simply not true that Scotland was more 'progressive' than England. I'm not even sure it's true now, surveys seem to show little if any difference nowadays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNTu27HPXyc
a) almost anyone would be an improvement on Pritti Patel
b) it would be more likely to sink her career than make it - and if I'm wrong about that, then fair enough.
BTW my 'progressive' was meant to apply not to the earlier period but to the Scottish Pmt period - insofar as there are any diffeences such as repealing Sec28 a bit earlier. Certainly compared to the past - it's not as if they used devolition to row back.
As for the LPF, the EU's position looks much the same as it has since March, but I'm delighted that Brexiteers think that they've made some big concessions.
We'd get to see if she's anything more than competent (though I'll grant that alone would make her stand out somewhat in the current cabinet).
They had it sequenced in January.
They'd trialled well over a hundred in vitro successfully by March.
By April, we saw very promising results for most or all of them in animals and volunteers were getting jabbed in Phase 1 studies.
We were kept apprised of Phase 1 and Phase 2 results and their success against SARS-CoV-2 and we knew when the Phase 3 tests were due to report.
The fact that a load of people even in Whitehall seemed intent on dismissing it as implausible or highly unlikely (or simply not going to happen) as late as September and October was staggering.
And, of course, the media and the various polemicists, but I rather expected them.
This wasn't remotely a surprise. Wonderful, yes, but something we watched coming down the tracks all year.
https://electrek.co/2020/12/14/amazons-zoox-unveils-autonomous-electric-vehicle-battery-pack/
Longest known exposure photograph ever captured using a beer can
https://www.herts.ac.uk/about-us/media-centre/news/2020/longest-known-exposure-photograph-ever-captured-using-a-beer-can
These are people who, to me, bloody well should have known a hell of a lot better.
Northern Ireland health officials propose six-week lockdown
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-55339234
https://twitter.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1339610683063808000?s=20
Most Guernsey headline "2mm* of Snow Causes Chaos in Upper Parishes"
*Not a typo.
On the previous position, it was their obstinance on not negotiating extensions of third party trade deals that forced the government into the idiotic customs union idea. Even someone as stupid as Theresa May recognised that we weren't in a position to lose both our EU trade and non-EU trade deals at the same time. Liz Truss has changed the equation and negotiating position for the government in a hugely positive manner. Once again, if you can't see that then it really is your problem.
That ministers have refused to guarantee that they will take responsibility* for actions, decisions and briefing that were *specifically against their instructions*.
*aka not saying who did what.
According to a new report, the finance minister is now planning to keep up to £330m of the funds allocated for coronavirus for Brexit-related needs.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18952223.finance-minister-rolls-back-pledge-spend-every-penny-covid-funds-tackling-pandemic/?ref=twtrec
Or pre-election goodies?
If they haven't spent it the Treasury should claw it back.
The PIII results were a pleasant surprise, but not a massive one.
Incidentally, it seems as though there might be a very small risk of Bell's Palsy* with the Pfizer vaccine - though nothing that would prevent its use.
*Graeme Garden is a well known sufferer - and points out that it's a particularly perversely named condition, as the partial facial paralysis can make it quite hard to pronounce Bs and Ps.
That + lack of supply + cold chain storage issues + tendency of everything this Government touches to turn to shit = slow, slow, slow. I mean, I'll be absolutely delighted to be proven wrong and be able to burn my horrible mask by mid-March, but the whole 2020 experience teaches one to always, ALWAYS expect everything to turn out badly. Because the development of the vaccines would appear to be just about the only thing that's gone well.
Edit. It appears so. Pity.
EU position:
Non-regression would mean that the level of protection in these areas should not be reduced from common standards applicable within the EU and UK at the end of the transition period. In addition, the EU proposes giving the governing body powers to modify the commitments to reflect evolving standards in most areas of LPF. Commitments would be subject to strong enforcement mechanisms domestically and dispute settlement within the treaty governance framework.
UK position:
The UK has proposed FTA chapters on environmental and labour standards with reciprocal commitments not to weaken protections, and on subsidies (reciprocal commitments to transparency), competition policy (commitments to maintain effective competition laws) and tax policy (commitments to good tax governance). In line with precedents in other EU FTAs all provisions should not be subject to the FTA’s dispute resolution mechanism.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8920/
"Oxford vaccine produces good immune response after two doses
The potential COVID-19 vaccine stimulates broad antibody and T-cell responses when doses are given, according to the latest results from Phase Two and Three clinical trials.
"The booster doses of the vaccine are both shown to induce stronger antibody responses than a single dose, the standard dose/standard dose inducing the best response," the university said.
The vaccine is currently being reviewed by regulators."
So they are now saying that full-full is better than half-full? Eh?
https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1339615164136603654?s=20
+532 deaths
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/17/labour-mps-sign-letter-urging-starmer-to-restore-whip-to-corbyn
We'd have needed Pfizer, Moderna, and Oxford/Astrazeneca to all have problems. That was unlikely.
And we will probably have Johnson & Johnson reporting in January, and Novavax not long after that.
Given the positive results all had shown in Phase 2 (and bear in mind that GSK/Sanofi had their problems in Phase 1/2), we'd have been very unlucky for that to happen.
vs yesterday
Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate has a better immune response when a two full-dose regime is used rather than a full-dose followed by a half-dose booster, the university said on Thursday.
The vaccine candidate, which has been licensed to AstraZeneca, has published interim late stage trial results showing higher efficacy when a half dose is followed by a full dose, compared to a two full-dose regime, though more work needs to be done to affirm the result.
---
Head in hands...if only they had done their trials properly.
Also, probably need to wait for the preprint.
From case data
From hospital admissions data
It seems to me that the EU position progressively hardened as we dithered (with a significant step change after the May deal was rejected) and they have now rowed back somewhat.
I'm far from convinced that all of this had to be left until two minutes to midnight. but of course there's no way to test alternative histories, and people will believe what they believe.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1339614792680673288?s=20
The plain truth is that nothing less than tier 3 works (and even that is losing its efficacy). If you give tier 2 to areas with low levels of infection they will increase. Its that simple. 3 just about holds the line but increasingly not quite. We need to vaccinate and hope that also stops transmission. We cannot beat this virus otherwise.
Alphabet Inc.’s Google waived a 1.1 billion-pound loan ($1.5 billion) to DeepMind Technologies Ltd. in 2019 after the U.K.-based artificial intelligence lab continued to ramp up the scale of its research and development.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-17/deepmind-says-2019-revenue-jumped-158-on-ai-research-work
I suspect this is where the government's plan for a mahoosive vaccination of the public gets slowed down because of the trials not being properly.
The total effect of the UK Government actions until quite recently has been to give the impression that they were desperate for *any* deal and would take *any* deal rather than no deal.
The last minute Macron intervention over fish should be seen in that light - he thought he could pull a significant victory for France by betting on *any* deal.
It is one of the paradoxes of basic Game Theory that refusing to confront or prepare for an option can make that option a nearly inevitable outcome.
Nigel Farage seeks out evidence for something he already believes