Sorry - another question posed by Mrs Stodge for the epidemiologists, virologists or right know-alls on here - if you have the vaccine, you achieve 100% immunity a week after the injection, I'm told.
Does that mean you can contract the virus and still transmit it to others even though you won't suffer any symptoms? In other words, does the vaccine make you asymptomatic or does it prevent you contracting the virus and being a carrier?
The answer tends to be "we don't know yet".
I'll have a guess at it reduces the risk of acting as a carrier but not to zero.
I think Richard might be right. But the purpose of all vaccines targeting the spike virus is to prevent infection. Thus if the vaccine works as intended, once your immunity is in place, it should prevent you being infected, and thus prevent you from having any virus in your body with which to infect others.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
I'm still struggling with vaccine logistics and some of the ambitious pronouncements from, primarily but not exclusively, those supportive of the Government.
To go back to numbers - 12 million people over 65, 25 million over 50 so to inoculate all means 24 million and 50 million injections respectively (subject to a single shot vaccine becoming available at some point).
So, if we assume 80% take up among the over 65s, that's 20 million vaccinations supposedly by the end of March which is 90 days from January 1st. That's more than 200,000 jabs every day - 9,000 per hour, 154 per minute every minute, day and night.
This has to be done, and Churchillian rhetoric notwithstanding, it's a formidable task. The point is expectation management, at which this Government struggles as it tries to balance reality and the promise of hope.
As for the latter, @Cyclefree's comments this morning have made me think. This isn't just going to be a national vaccination challenge but a national mental health challenge and we need to see the same kind of commitment and resource put in to helping those who don't need the vaccine but need other forms of help.
The fixation on needles and arms masks the equally urgent requirement for listening and minds. I've not appreciated that because I'm very fortunate but I do appreciate there is and continues to be a huge amount of suffering for many whether it be mental health or, worse, mental and physical abuse.
It may be our greatest shame may not be how we dealt with care homes but how we failed those facing mental and physical abuse about which there is much still to be revealed, I fear,
Is 200,000 per day truly a formidable challenge? Rephrased, it’s an average of 29 per day per GP surgery. Obviously some are going to be far bigger than others, but on another board, a practice nurse said that 6 nurses at her surgery gave over 500 in one day (admittedly over 11 hours work, which would probably not be sustainable long-term).
Sterile debate today, defenders defending, attackers trying to pin blame, no suggestions as to a better way forward just who may have said what, when.
What’s needed is to police the restrictions seriously, none of this prosecution is a last resort Ensure the rollout of the vaccine is in the hands of logistics experts
Start investigating the claims of fraud from all sides, government, claimants etc
The UK government looks like a soft pushover waiting to be taken advantage of by its own citizens.
How on earth do you police this though. That is the problem with trying to make this law. Everyone knows it is unenforceable.
A story to illustrate.
Just over a year ago on November 6th 2019 a good friend of mine died. He had been suffering from lung cancer but his death was sudden due to a pulmonary haemorrhage whilst he was at home alone. A mutual friend had turned up but could not get in so called myself and also the police. After identifying my friend I spent a couple of hours with the policeman helping him with details and waiting for the undertakers to arrive. In that time it turned out that the total police force present in Newark that Tuesday evening was the copper I was talking to, one other who was investigating an assault in one of the villages and a desk sergeant. When I expressed surprise at how few police were on duty he said that this was pretty good for the town and that Nottingham that evening had 15 officers on duty - for a city of some 330,000 people.
Policing in this country is by consent. It has to be because there simply isn't the power to do it any other way on a day to day basis. The idea we can police covid restrictions in any meaningful manner when so many do not believe in them is completely unrealistic.
Indeed. The Tories have absolutely gutted the police of resources. The same MPs who voted again and again and again to cut funding and thus officer numbers then whine about the lack of officers.
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
But, it is a difficult argument to make.
In general, mutations are good, as the virus mutates to a less deadly version (it is not in the virus' interests to kill the host).
There are have already been 20,000 mutations recorded.
So, you could argue that allowing plenty of opportunity to mutate is a good thing.
It is always easier to break something to fix it -- and that goes for viruses too. The more it is allowed to mutate, probably the better.
Not true. Viruses mutate randomly, and there is no reason to think less lethal mutations are more frequent. It's about which mutations get selected for. Killing vs not killing the host is not selective when you have a virtually infinite supply of infectable new hosts. So your claim applies to snow leopard viruses but not really to human ones.
Agree. The virus has no ability to mutate as more or less deadly. It is entirely random. It is simply a case of how easy it is to survive and multiply. A virus that kills instantly upon infection will not be successful as it won't get a chance to spread, but if a virus was easily transmittable and took time to make the host ill so that it could spread easily and yet be 100% fatal it would be a viable mutation.
The mutations are random, but the tendency is for viruses to become less deadly (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence).
Your argument assumes no correlation between transmissibility and onset of the disease.
Can you provide an example of a virus that has mutated to become more infectious AND with a longer onset time?
Actually, the strong correlation in respiratory diseases is an inverse one between transmissibility and morbidity/mortality and there is a well-understood mechanism for this. Sneezing assists in transmissibility of respiratory diseases, and sneezes are induced more in infections of the upper respiratory tract which tend to have lower morbidity/mortality levels than diseases of the lower respiratory tract (i.e. those that bind in the nose and throat, rather than in the bronchi and lungs).
That is part of what makes COVID so unusual and deadly - SARS-CoV-2 binds with just about every tissue in the human body (as every tissue has the ACE-2 receptor to which the spike protein binds, and every tissue has one of the protease surface enzymes that activate the spike protein (i.e. cleave one of the sub-units so that it opens up that part of the protein thereby allowing the virus to enter the cell and infect it)) thus it is binding in both upper and lower respiratory tracts causing both high transmissibility and high morbidity/mortality.
AND about half of all transmission happens before onset of symptoms.
Do viruses normally mutate so the onset time increases, or decreases, or stays the same ?
There must be plenty of empirical data on this, no?
Sterile debate today, defenders defending, attackers trying to pin blame, no suggestions as to a better way forward just who may have said what, when.
What’s needed is to police the restrictions seriously, none of this prosecution is a last resort Ensure the rollout of the vaccine is in the hands of logistics experts
Start investigating the claims of fraud from all sides, government, claimants etc
The UK government looks like a soft pushover waiting to be taken advantage of by its own citizens.
How on earth do you police this though. That is the problem with trying to make this law. Everyone knows it is unenforceable.
A story to illustrate.
Just over a year ago on November 6th 2019 a good friend of mine died. He had been suffering from lung cancer but his death was sudden due to a pulmonary haemorrhage whilst he was at home alone. A mutual friend had turned up but could not get in so called myself and also the police. After identifying my friend I spent a couple of hours with the policeman helping him with details and waiting for the undertakers to arrive. In that time it turned out that the total police force present in Newark that Tuesday evening was the copper I was talking to, one other who was investigating an assault in one of the villages and a desk sergeant. When I expressed surprise at how few police were on duty he said that this was pretty good for the town and that Nottingham that evening had 15 officers on duty - for a city of some 330,000 people.
Policing in this country is by consent. It has to be because there simply isn't the power to do it any other way on a day to day basis. The idea we can police covid restrictions in any meaningful manner when so many do not believe in them is completely unrealistic.
Indeed. The Tories have absolutely gutted the police of resources. The same MPs who voted again and again and again to cut funding and thus officer numbers then whine about the lack of officers.
In Scotland the Tories claimed they made the SNP recruit extra officers (which migjt well be true).
So much for the Union.
Most definitely NOT true you mean.
Actually it is - in the budget negotiations some years back. They crowed about it in their through-the-door bumf for some time.
Only after the Scottish Government cut numbers due to lack of funding.
Garbage, the SNP came in saying they would hire an extra 1000 police and they did it in short order and maintained numbers. The Tories jumped on their coattails and used that as their excuse for supporting the SNP budget because they could not come up with any area to cut to meet their other pathetic demands.
Number of officers in England and Wales increased by 20k from June 19 to June 20.
In London, it's not quite like that. 27,011 in 2010 to 25,126 now. It was 23,106 in 2019 so an increase of just under 9%. The numbers hardly changed in Boris's second term as Mayor and have fallen about 4% under Sadiq.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
So for the last decades we have outgrown our similarly developed European neighbours, whilst in the EU? While prior to EEC entry we did not for several decades, and that is a reason for leaving? 🤔
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
But, it is a difficult argument to make.
In general, mutations are good, as the virus mutates to a less deadly version (it is not in the virus' interests to kill the host).
There are have already been 20,000 mutations recorded.
So, you could argue that allowing plenty of opportunity to mutate is a good thing.
It is always easier to break something to fix it -- and that goes for viruses too. The more it is allowed to mutate, probably the better.
Not true. Viruses mutate randomly, and there is no reason to think less lethal mutations are more frequent. It's about which mutations get selected for. Killing vs not killing the host is not selective when you have a virtually infinite supply of infectable new hosts. So your claim applies to snow leopard viruses but not really to human ones.
Agree. The virus has no ability to mutate as more or less deadly. It is entirely random. It is simply a case of how easy it is to survive and multiply. A virus that kills instantly upon infection will not be successful as it won't get a chance to spread, but if a virus was easily transmittable and took time to make the host ill so that it could spread easily and yet be 100% fatal it would be a viable mutation.
The mutations are random, but the tendency is for viruses to become less deadly (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence).
Your argument assumes no correlation between transmissibility and onset of the disease.
Can you provide an example of a virus that has mutated to become more infectious AND with a longer onset time?
Your first sentence is a contradiction (random, but a tendency to) unless you are agreeing with my point that a more deadly disease is less likely to survive because it kills of its hosts to quickly which will lead to the effect that a less deadly strain will survive. However you can't rely on that because of the example @IshmaelZ gave and the example I gave (there may be others)
In answer to your question no I can't give an example of a virus that meets those exact criteria, but then I am not an expert on viruses, but flu certainly does often mutate to worst types and of course although not a virus the same rules of evolution apply to bacteria which will always do so because of antibiotics leaving those immune or partly immune to survive.
Sorry - another question posed by Mrs Stodge for the epidemiologists, virologists or right know-alls on here - if you have the vaccine, you achieve 100% immunity a week after the injection, I'm told.
Does that mean you can contract the virus and still transmit it to others even though you won't suffer any symptoms? In other words, does the vaccine make you asymptomatic or does it prevent you contracting the virus and being a carrier?
The answer tends to be "we don't know yet".
I'll have a guess at it reduces the risk of acting as a carrier but not to zero.
I was about to say the say thing. My understanding is that the uncertainty is a price we pay for getting the vaccine out there quickly. There simply wasn't time enough to check and test for this kind of detail.
I think the new virus strain is somewhat a pretext. Obviously greater transmissibility is a concern, but the big increase in cases in parts of the UK isn't wholly or probably even mainly down to the new strain. It's easier for governments to say, Because of the new deadly virus strain, than to say, We mucked up.
And with respect you possess scientific qualifications for that statement
No BigG. You can't allow Drakeford off the hook that easily.
I would not let Drakeford off the hook for any reason
He has been a disaster for Wales and not just on covid, but the failed NHS which has had negative effects on my own family
If you can't (justifiably) let Drakeford of the hook, neither can you Johnson.
Boris is not a covid PM but the present controversy over Christmas has become more apparent on the media this am with the scientific advice only being given to the government on Friday and Boris reacting yesterday, followed by Sturgeon and Drakeford
I would say that he cannot be enjoying any of this as it is so much against his freedom optimistic nature
However, we are where we are and I have no confidence Starmer and his front bench would be any better
Indeed I believe even Merkel is becoming unpopular day by day
Here is the problem. The advice WASN'T on Friday. The scientists have known about this for some time. The government have been talking about it since at least Monday*. It didn't suddenly arrive out of nowhere on Friday.
For at least the past week the government have known this was about - if not exactly how bad it was, they at least knew it was bad. We know this based on what they were saying on Monday. What then did the government choose to do whilst in possession of this knowledge?
Thats right, it stepped up its plans to have a Big Christmas blowout. More publicity about extra travel opportunities. Threatening to sue LEAs for not keeping their schools open. Feeding more pro-Boris saves Christmas stories to the press. That astonishing display at PMQs.
They are brilliant at immediate-win tactics but utterly blind to anything longer. Which is why Ridge was able to throw the "inhuman" comment straight back at ManCock this morning. If you've been told there is a new super-pox and you've chosen to ignore the scientists again wouldn't it least be sensible to back off on the political rhetoric?
*There is evidence that it has been known for longer. Whitty yesterday suggested fairly strongly that the government acting now was not at the first time of asking. You remember the photo a month or so back of Whitty looking very agitated in a meeting..?
But NHS England on Marr confirmed the advice changed on Friday and hence yesterday's announcement
Furthermore, why did it take yesterday's announcement for Sturgeon and Drakeford to immediately act as well on the same advice and with virtually identical measures
Boris can be attacked for many things but why did neither Sturgeon or Drakeford act before yesterday
Wowsers. You really will defend anything. We know for a fact that they knew this was out there and that it was bad. The only question was how much worse than standard Covid. So obviously attacking schools and calling what they are now themselves doing was obviously the smart political strategy.
Why not answer the question
Why did Boris, Sturgeon and Drakeford only act immediately after the advice on Friday if they had known before
I don't know about the others. But if the PM and cabinet didn't know about it until Friday then why were they warning us about it 4 days earlier on Monday?
Because the advice doesn't go from zero to full overnight.
On Monday they knew there was a new strain that appeared to be increasing transmission but how much was unknown. So the advice changed and the relevant region was moved into Tier 3.
On Thursday NERVTAG reported the new strain was even worse than was previously envisioned. Hence the emergency recall of the Covid O Committee that had already met earlier that day and the emergency statements by Johnson, Sturgeon and Drakeford the following day.
Indeed. My point is that having known their were awaiting news about how much worse this new strain was the government chose to attack schools and claim the opposition wanted to cancel Christmas. The politically smart option would have been to soften people up for what was likely to come. As Whitty has strongly inferred he was advising
I called Williamson a damn fool at the time for the schools thing.
Even without the NERVTAG report threatening to sue to keep schools open for three whole days (not weeks or months) was absolutely futile.
Williamson is an idiot. Doesn't know how to pick his battles. There was nothing to be won from that one. For the sake of three whole days just let it slide. Idiot.
Not disagreeing with the idiocy of Williamson.
But I wonder if Greenwich council went with the proper procedures and negotiations before making the announcement.
Who TF cares? It was a few days and an early response to the absolute crisis evolving in London on the back of the new variant as the government has now identified. It was beyond stupid.
I'm still struggling with vaccine logistics and some of the ambitious pronouncements from, primarily but not exclusively, those supportive of the Government.
To go back to numbers - 12 million people over 65, 25 million over 50 so to inoculate all means 24 million and 50 million injections respectively (subject to a single shot vaccine becoming available at some point).
So, if we assume 80% take up among the over 65s, that's 20 million vaccinations supposedly by the end of March which is 90 days from January 1st. That's more than 200,000 jabs every day - 9,000 per hour, 154 per minute every minute, day and night.
This has to be done, and Churchillian rhetoric notwithstanding, it's a formidable task. The point is expectation management, at which this Government struggles as it tries to balance reality and the promise of hope.
As for the latter, @Cyclefree's comments this morning have made me think. This isn't just going to be a national vaccination challenge but a national mental health challenge and we need to see the same kind of commitment and resource put in to helping those who don't need the vaccine but need other forms of help.
The fixation on needles and arms masks the equally urgent requirement for listening and minds. I've not appreciated that because I'm very fortunate but I do appreciate there is and continues to be a huge amount of suffering for many whether it be mental health or, worse, mental and physical abuse.
It may be our greatest shame may not be how we dealt with care homes but how we failed those facing mental and physical abuse about which there is much still to be revealed, I fear,
Is 200,000 per day truly a formidable challenge? Rephrased, it’s an average of 29 per day per GP surgery. Obviously some are going to be far bigger than others, but on another board, a practice nurse said that 6 nurses at her surgery gave over 500 in one day (admittedly over 11 hours work, which would probably not be sustainable long-term).
The bigger problem is the logistics of supply and booking, rather than the er... sharp end of delivery.
Is 200,000 per day truly a formidable challenge? Rephrased, it’s an average of 29 per day per GP surgery. Obviously some are going to be far bigger than others, but on another board, a practice nurse said that 6 nurses at her surgery gave over 500 in one day (admittedly over 11 hours work, which would probably not be sustainable long-term).
I think the sustainability is one aspect. Older people are less mobile in general so it may take longer for each inoculation and that's before we consider those who can't attend a GP's surgery and will to be vaccinated at home.
We're also doing this in the middle of winter - the weather is poor - what if we get a 2-week cold spell with snow and ice which will reduce the ability of people to travel. I presume we won't ask people to risk breaking a leg on black ice just to get a Covid vaccination.
Lines of people queuing up, Metropolis-like, to be vaccinated may be the ideal but it bumps into reality.
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
But, it is a difficult argument to make.
In general, mutations are good, as the virus mutates to a less deadly version (it is not in the virus' interests to kill the host).
There are have already been 20,000 mutations recorded.
So, you could argue that allowing plenty of opportunity to mutate is a good thing.
It is always easier to break something to fix it -- and that goes for viruses too. The more it is allowed to mutate, probably the better.
Not true. Viruses mutate randomly, and there is no reason to think less lethal mutations are more frequent. It's about which mutations get selected for. Killing vs not killing the host is not selective when you have a virtually infinite supply of infectable new hosts. So your claim applies to snow leopard viruses but not really to human ones.
Agree. The virus has no ability to mutate as more or less deadly. It is entirely random. It is simply a case of how easy it is to survive and multiply. A virus that kills instantly upon infection will not be successful as it won't get a chance to spread, but if a virus was easily transmittable and took time to make the host ill so that it could spread easily and yet be 100% fatal it would be a viable mutation.
The mutations are random, but the tendency is for viruses to become less deadly (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence).
Your argument assumes no correlation between transmissibility and onset of the disease.
Can you provide an example of a virus that has mutated to become more infectious AND with a longer onset time?
Actually, the strong correlation in respiratory diseases is an inverse one between transmissibility and morbidity/mortality and there is a well-understood mechanism for this. Sneezing assists in transmissibility of respiratory diseases, and sneezes are induced more in infections of the upper respiratory tract which tend to have lower morbidity/mortality levels than diseases of the lower respiratory tract (i.e. those that bind in the nose and throat, rather than in the bronchi and lungs).
That is part of what makes COVID so unusual and deadly - SARS-CoV-2 binds with just about every tissue in the human body (as every tissue has the ACE-2 receptor to which the spike protein binds, and every tissue has one of the protease surface enzymes that activate the spike protein (i.e. cleave one of the sub-units so that it opens up that part of the protein thereby allowing the virus to enter the cell and infect it)) thus it is binding in both upper and lower respiratory tracts causing both high transmissibility and high morbidity/mortality.
AND about half of all transmission happens before onset of symptoms.
Tim T. I thought you said the other day that the mutations in the virus we are currently concerned about don't affect the spike protein. But it seems clear that the mutations do affect the spike protein. Maybe only slightly but apparently significantly in terms of speed of spread of the virus. So I probably misread or misunderstood what you said?
Can you clarify what you said please and also what are your thoughts on the likelihood of current or future mutations significantly reducing the efficacy of current vaccines? Thanks.
I'd really like to check whether Rentoul has been cribbing from PB, Alistair Meekes and/or myself, but the full article is behind a paywall. Would it be possible for someone to send me a copy?
Sterile debate today, defenders defending, attackers trying to pin blame, no suggestions as to a better way forward just who may have said what, when.
What’s needed is to police the restrictions seriously, none of this prosecution is a last resort Ensure the rollout of the vaccine is in the hands of logistics experts
Start investigating the claims of fraud from all sides, government, claimants etc
The UK government looks like a soft pushover waiting to be taken advantage of by its own citizens.
How on earth do you police this though. That is the problem with trying to make this law. Everyone knows it is unenforceable.
A story to illustrate.
Just over a year ago on November 6th 2019 a good friend of mine died. He had been suffering from lung cancer but his death was sudden due to a pulmonary haemorrhage whilst he was at home alone. A mutual friend had turned up but could not get in so called myself and also the police. After identifying my friend I spent a couple of hours with the policeman helping him with details and waiting for the undertakers to arrive. In that time it turned out that the total police force present in Newark that Tuesday evening was the copper I was talking to, one other who was investigating an assault in one of the villages and a desk sergeant. When I expressed surprise at how few police were on duty he said that this was pretty good for the town and that Nottingham that evening had 15 officers on duty - for a city of some 330,000 people.
Policing in this country is by consent. It has to be because there simply isn't the power to do it any other way on a day to day basis. The idea we can police covid restrictions in any meaningful manner when so many do not believe in them is completely unrealistic.
Indeed. The Tories have absolutely gutted the police of resources. The same MPs who voted again and again and again to cut funding and thus officer numbers then whine about the lack of officers.
Number of officers in England and Wales increased by 20k from June 19 to June 20.
I presume you mean from June 2019 to June 2020, not 19-20 June 2020 ...
Err, yes. There has been a significant increase in police numbers after a fairly long decline. I accept that not all of the decline has been made good yet but crime figures have been falling too.
I'm still struggling with vaccine logistics and some of the ambitious pronouncements from, primarily but not exclusively, those supportive of the Government.
To go back to numbers - 12 million people over 65, 25 million over 50 so to inoculate all means 24 million and 50 million injections respectively (subject to a single shot vaccine becoming available at some point).
So, if we assume 80% take up among the over 65s, that's 20 million vaccinations supposedly by the end of March which is 90 days from January 1st. That's more than 200,000 jabs every day - 9,000 per hour, 154 per minute every minute, day and night.
This has to be done, and Churchillian rhetoric notwithstanding, it's a formidable task. The point is expectation management, at which this Government struggles as it tries to balance reality and the promise of hope.
As for the latter, @Cyclefree's comments this morning have made me think. This isn't just going to be a national vaccination challenge but a national mental health challenge and we need to see the same kind of commitment and resource put in to helping those who don't need the vaccine but need other forms of help.
The fixation on needles and arms masks the equally urgent requirement for listening and minds. I've not appreciated that because I'm very fortunate but I do appreciate there is and continues to be a huge amount of suffering for many whether it be mental health or, worse, mental and physical abuse.
It may be our greatest shame may not be how we dealt with care homes but how we failed those facing mental and physical abuse about which there is much still to be revealed, I fear,
Is 200,000 per day truly a formidable challenge? Rephrased, it’s an average of 29 per day per GP surgery. Obviously some are going to be far bigger than others, but on another board, a practice nurse said that 6 nurses at her surgery gave over 500 in one day (admittedly over 11 hours work, which would probably not be sustainable long-term).
The bigger problem is the logistics of supply and booking, rather than the er... sharp end of delivery.
I think with the AZ vaccine the logistics are fairly simple. Don't know about booking but it seems to be working so far, a few of my elderly relatives have had their first jab and got their second jab appointments booked for January.
We should be aiming for 1m per day once we get the AZ stream online. If the J&J vaccine passes MHRA certification in early Feb as expected then we could be in a really good position to get this whole thing done by end of April.
» show previous quotes I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.
I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.
Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year
That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%
Not in England.
In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.
They got a grown up. Look what we got.
The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.
And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.
I doubt even you believe the rubbish you are spouting. Nobody else does, that's for sure
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
The drop in credit rating was political. The actual yields have barely moved.
In fact, as our actuaries were lamenting in the context of their pension calculations, they have continued to fall. We are in a very strange world of QE, huge deficits, the lowest gilt yields in history and almost no inflation. It is positively weird and the hot topic of economics right now. None of our conventional theories can explain this.
» show previous quotes I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.
I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.
Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year
That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%
Not in England.
In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.
They got a grown up. Look what we got.
The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.
And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.
I doubt even you believe the rubbish you are spouting. Nobody else does, that's for sure
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
So for the last decades we have outgrown our similarly developed European neighbours, whilst in the EU? While prior to EEC entry we did not for several decades, and that is a reason for leaving? 🤔
QTWAIN.
We did in recent decades while getting progressively more estranged and on the way out from Europe.
Prior to EEC entry was of course prior to Thatcher reforming this country. The UK ceased to be the sick man of Europe because of Thatcher not EEC membership.
» show previous quotes I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.
I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.
Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year
That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%
Not in England.
In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.
They got a grown up. Look what we got.
The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.
And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.
I doubt even you believe the rubbish you are spouting. Nobody else does, that's for sure
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
So for the last decades we have outgrown our similarly developed European neighbours, whilst in the EU? While prior to EEC entry we did not for several decades, and that is a reason for leaving? 🤔
QTWAIN.
We did in recent decades while getting progressively more estranged and on the way out from Europe.
Prior to EEC entry was of course prior to Thatcher reforming this country. The UK ceased to be the sick man of Europe because of Thatcher not EEC membership.
I'm still struggling with vaccine logistics and some of the ambitious pronouncements from, primarily but not exclusively, those supportive of the Government.
To go back to numbers - 12 million people over 65, 25 million over 50 so to inoculate all means 24 million and 50 million injections respectively (subject to a single shot vaccine becoming available at some point).
So, if we assume 80% take up among the over 65s, that's 20 million vaccinations supposedly by the end of March which is 90 days from January 1st. That's more than 200,000 jabs every day - 9,000 per hour, 154 per minute every minute, day and night.
This has to be done, and Churchillian rhetoric notwithstanding, it's a formidable task. The point is expectation management, at which this Government struggles as it tries to balance reality and the promise of hope.
As for the latter, @Cyclefree's comments this morning have made me think. This isn't just going to be a national vaccination challenge but a national mental health challenge and we need to see the same kind of commitment and resource put in to helping those who don't need the vaccine but need other forms of help.
The fixation on needles and arms masks the equally urgent requirement for listening and minds. I've not appreciated that because I'm very fortunate but I do appreciate there is and continues to be a huge amount of suffering for many whether it be mental health or, worse, mental and physical abuse.
It may be our greatest shame may not be how we dealt with care homes but how we failed those facing mental and physical abuse about which there is much still to be revealed, I fear,
Is 200,000 per day truly a formidable challenge? Rephrased, it’s an average of 29 per day per GP surgery. Obviously some are going to be far bigger than others, but on another board, a practice nurse said that 6 nurses at her surgery gave over 500 in one day (admittedly over 11 hours work, which would probably not be sustainable long-term).
The bigger problem is the logistics of supply and booking, rather than the er... sharp end of delivery.
That's true, but that's a soluble problem, with sufficient resources. And this is the single event in most of our lifetimes where the country should devote whatever resources are necessary to it.
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
But, it is a difficult argument to make.
In general, mutations are good, as the virus mutates to a less deadly version (it is not in the virus' interests to kill the host).
There are have already been 20,000 mutations recorded.
So, you could argue that allowing plenty of opportunity to mutate is a good thing.
It is always easier to break something to fix it -- and that goes for viruses too. The more it is allowed to mutate, probably the better.
Not true. Viruses mutate randomly, and there is no reason to think less lethal mutations are more frequent. It's about which mutations get selected for. Killing vs not killing the host is not selective when you have a virtually infinite supply of infectable new hosts. So your claim applies to snow leopard viruses but not really to human ones.
Agree. The virus has no ability to mutate as more or less deadly. It is entirely random. It is simply a case of how easy it is to survive and multiply. A virus that kills instantly upon infection will not be successful as it won't get a chance to spread, but if a virus was easily transmittable and took time to make the host ill so that it could spread easily and yet be 100% fatal it would be a viable mutation.
The mutations are random, but the tendency is for viruses to become less deadly (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence).
Your argument assumes no correlation between transmissibility and onset of the disease.
Can you provide an example of a virus that has mutated to become more infectious AND with a longer onset time?
Your first sentence is a contradiction (random, but a tendency to) unless you are agreeing with my point that a more deadly disease is less likely to survive because it kills of its hosts to quickly which will lead to the effect that a less deadly strain will survive. However you can't rely on that because of the example @IshmaelZ gave and the example I gave (there may be others)
In answer to your question no I can't give an example of a virus that meets those exact criteria, but then I am not an expert on viruses, but flu certainly does often mutate to worst types and of course although not a virus the same rules of evolution apply to bacteria which will always do so because of antibiotics leaving those immune or partly immune to survive.
I wasn't aware it was, as you say, "my point", but I am agreeing with it.
There is plenty of data on how viruses mutate, and -- from that data -- one can establish empirical rules. That is all I am saying.
It is not impossible for COVID to mutate to become more infectious, more deadly and with a longer onset time, so as to make it a true killer virus from hell.
All I have asked is: are there any examples of viruses that have so mutated ?
I think the new virus strain is somewhat a pretext. Obviously greater transmissibility is a concern, but the big increase in cases in parts of the UK isn't wholly or probably even mainly down to the new strain. It's easier for governments to say, Because of the new deadly virus strain, than to say, We mucked up.
And with respect you possess scientific qualifications for that statement
And with respect scientific qualifications have precisely nothing to do with the point I am making
Unless I misunderstood your comments you are suggesting the big increase in cases isn't wholly or probably down to the new strain, when the whole purpose of moving London and the South East to tier 4 was that the scientific advise was that it is
I didn't express my point well, I think. Governments are taking measures to address situations that have gone out of control due to their earlier mismanagement. They need to take those measures regardless of the new strain, but by saying those measures are in response to the new strain, they find it easier, it seems, to make a decision they were finding difficult earlier
This probably applies more to England and Wales than Scotland, which has more or less kept on top of cases recently. In Scotland's case, the new measures are more precautionary, in light of the new strain
So are you seriously saying that NERVTAG, Sage scientists, the SNP's Sturgeon, Labour's Drakeford and many more are all engaged in a conspiracy to hide when this new information came to light?
All so that Boris could attack Drakeford's colleague?
Given the Tories hide as much as they can from the devolved Governments and rarely even speak to them it si no surprise. They are nasty arseholes.
Sterile debate today, defenders defending, attackers trying to pin blame, no suggestions as to a better way forward just who may have said what, when.
What’s needed is to police the restrictions seriously, none of this prosecution is a last resort Ensure the rollout of the vaccine is in the hands of logistics experts
Start investigating the claims of fraud from all sides, government, claimants etc
The UK government looks like a soft pushover waiting to be taken advantage of by its own citizens.
How on earth do you police this though. That is the problem with trying to make this law. Everyone knows it is unenforceable.
A story to illustrate.
Just over a year ago on November 6th 2019 a good friend of mine died. He had been suffering from lung cancer but his death was sudden due to a pulmonary haemorrhage whilst he was at home alone. A mutual friend had turned up but could not get in so called myself and also the police. After identifying my friend I spent a couple of hours with the policeman helping him with details and waiting for the undertakers to arrive. In that time it turned out that the total police force present in Newark that Tuesday evening was the copper I was talking to, one other who was investigating an assault in one of the villages and a desk sergeant. When I expressed surprise at how few police were on duty he said that this was pretty good for the town and that Nottingham that evening had 15 officers on duty - for a city of some 330,000 people.
Policing in this country is by consent. It has to be because there simply isn't the power to do it any other way on a day to day basis. The idea we can police covid restrictions in any meaningful manner when so many do not believe in them is completely unrealistic.
Indeed. The Tories have absolutely gutted the police of resources. The same MPs who voted again and again and again to cut funding and thus officer numbers then whine about the lack of officers.
I'd really like to check whether Rentoul has been cribbing from PB, Alistair Meekes and/or myself, but the full article is behind a paywall. Would it be possible for someone to send me a copy?
Particularly, did Rentoul allude to any money laundering aspects?
Betfair lets people back horses that have fallen, and died, to win the race, & players that have been substituted to score the first goal in football matches. Those things actually cannot happen. Trump could have still been President, albeit he shouldn't be paid as a winner as per Betfair's rules, so wrong as this seems/is, it is not as bad as things that have been going on in Betfair markets for years
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
The drop in credit rating was political. The actual yields have barely moved.
In fact, as our actuaries were lamenting in the context of their pension calculations, they have continued to fall. We are in a very strange world of QE, huge deficits, the lowest gilt yields in history and almost no inflation. It is positively weird and the hot topic of economics right now. None of our conventional theories can explain this.
I'm fairly sure that economics will undergo a change much like that from alchemy to chemistry. Quite astonishing how much they get paid when there's really no such thing as facts in the subject.
(My guesses are probably worse than theirs, but one guess I'd make is that the book 'The Origin of Wealth' by a seemingly forgotten chap will be more favorably regarded in the future)
I just hope it's not too much like the Emperor's new clothes. I've worked quite hard for my savings.
Am I correct in thinking that Colchester was the only borough of the recent South Tier 3 announcement to subsequently escape Tier 4, and that thus there are major road routes into not just Felixstowe, but also Harwich, that entirely avoid passing through tier 4 areas.
Like with the Brexit port grants (which can't be right, surely), looks like some places are getting a better deal than others.
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
But, it is a difficult argument to make.
In general, mutations are good, as the virus mutates to a less deadly version (it is not in the virus' interests to kill the host).
There are have already been 20,000 mutations recorded.
So, you could argue that allowing plenty of opportunity to mutate is a good thing.
It is always easier to break something to fix it -- and that goes for viruses too. The more it is allowed to mutate, probably the better.
Not true. Viruses mutate randomly, and there is no reason to think less lethal mutations are more frequent. It's about which mutations get selected for. Killing vs not killing the host is not selective when you have a virtually infinite supply of infectable new hosts. So your claim applies to snow leopard viruses but not really to human ones.
Agree. The virus has no ability to mutate as more or less deadly. It is entirely random. It is simply a case of how easy it is to survive and multiply. A virus that kills instantly upon infection will not be successful as it won't get a chance to spread, but if a virus was easily transmittable and took time to make the host ill so that it could spread easily and yet be 100% fatal it would be a viable mutation.
The mutations are random, but the tendency is for viruses to become less deadly (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence).
Your argument assumes no correlation between transmissibility and onset of the disease.
Can you provide an example of a virus that has mutated to become more infectious AND with a longer onset time?
Actually, the strong correlation in respiratory diseases is an inverse one between transmissibility and morbidity/mortality and there is a well-understood mechanism for this. Sneezing assists in transmissibility of respiratory diseases, and sneezes are induced more in infections of the upper respiratory tract which tend to have lower morbidity/mortality levels than diseases of the lower respiratory tract (i.e. those that bind in the nose and throat, rather than in the bronchi and lungs).
That is part of what makes COVID so unusual and deadly - SARS-CoV-2 binds with just about every tissue in the human body (as every tissue has the ACE-2 receptor to which the spike protein binds, and every tissue has one of the protease surface enzymes that activate the spike protein (i.e. cleave one of the sub-units so that it opens up that part of the protein thereby allowing the virus to enter the cell and infect it)) thus it is binding in both upper and lower respiratory tracts causing both high transmissibility and high morbidity/mortality.
AND about half of all transmission happens before onset of symptoms.
Tim T. I thought you said the other day that the mutations in the virus we are currently concerned about don't affect the spike protein. But it seems clear that the mutations do affect the spike protein. Maybe only slightly but apparently significantly in terms of speed of spread of the virus. So I probably misread or misunderstood what you said?
Can you clarify what you said please and also what are your thoughts on the likelihood of current or future mutations significantly reducing the efficacy of current vaccines? Thanks.
There is no evidence that I have seen that any of the mutations to date have effected the binding domain of the spike protein. I have not seen any genomic data on the London mutation, so cannot definitively state that to be the case for it.
There are many factors, probably many we don't even know about yet, that go into making a virus transmissible. So far, at a biochemical level, I am aware of 3 related to COVID - the affinity for the spike protein to bind to the ACE-2 receptor, the efficacy of the surface proteases in activating the spike protein by cleaving it 'correctly', and some not-yet-understood role for polysaccharides on the cell surface for mediating all of this.
But then other factors relating to its morbidity will also play into transmissibility (I have mentioned infection of the upper respiratory tract causing sneezing). I am sure we do not know all the ways in which the other factors contribute to transmissibility.
In short, the spike protein, while a/the key factor, is not the only factor in transmissibility.
As always, I stand ready to learn from others on the site with better information.
On the EU negotiations. It looks like they are in the haggle stage. EU turning the screws on the UK to extract as much fish as possible and the UK holding out. Rightly so in the case of the UK. Fish quotas are a miniscule Brexit win to set against vast Brexit losses. But it is a win nevertheless and should be maximised,
My question to you is, does our deal on fishing concede to work with our neighbours to prevent over fishing as it does now? Will the deal allow EU to sell us the fish we need we can’t get from our waters, like cod? Will it allow our fishing industry to easily sell the fish they catch to EU country’s.
And a follow up if I may. Was the use of EU fishing boats in our waters imposed on us by EU, or something UK asked for, on basis smaller fish on the way to our waters were getting fished before they got here and UK created this policy on basis why not let them grow big and share the big ones, because without agreement we don’t have fish in our waters they fished before they get here?
Fishing policy is murk everywhere. The Icelanders are arguing with the EU and Norway; Norway is arguing with the UK and the UK is arguing with the EU. It's not clear what all those arguments are about, so I don't really know. But as best I can:
I wouldn't assume fishing rights have any effect on overfishing. The UK is just as likely to overfish outside the Common Fisheries Policy. In principle the UK along with the EU and Norway should agree how much fish should be taken out of their respective waters, as a common resource. Who does the actual fishing is a different matter.
Even under a deal, UK fish and seafood will be subject to extra tests and delay that will make shipment of live and fresh seafood difficult. Fresh produce sells at higher prices than frozen.
Quotas are assigned to member states under CFP, but it is up to member states to decide how to distribute the allocation. The sale of UK quota to foreign vessels was UK policy
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
But, it is a difficult argument to make.
In general, mutations are good, as the virus mutates to a less deadly version (it is not in the virus' interests to kill the host).
There are have already been 20,000 mutations recorded.
So, you could argue that allowing plenty of opportunity to mutate is a good thing.
It is always easier to break something to fix it -- and that goes for viruses too. The more it is allowed to mutate, probably the better.
Not true. Viruses mutate randomly, and there is no reason to think less lethal mutations are more frequent. It's about which mutations get selected for. Killing vs not killing the host is not selective when you have a virtually infinite supply of infectable new hosts. So your claim applies to snow leopard viruses but not really to human ones.
Agree. The virus has no ability to mutate as more or less deadly. It is entirely random. It is simply a case of how easy it is to survive and multiply. A virus that kills instantly upon infection will not be successful as it won't get a chance to spread, but if a virus was easily transmittable and took time to make the host ill so that it could spread easily and yet be 100% fatal it would be a viable mutation.
The mutations are random, but the tendency is for viruses to become less deadly (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence).
Your argument assumes no correlation between transmissibility and onset of the disease.
Can you provide an example of a virus that has mutated to become more infectious AND with a longer onset time?
Your first sentence is a contradiction (random, but a tendency to) unless you are agreeing with my point that a more deadly disease is less likely to survive because it kills of its hosts to quickly which will lead to the effect that a less deadly strain will survive. However you can't rely on that because of the example @IshmaelZ gave and the example I gave (there may be others)
In answer to your question no I can't give an example of a virus that meets those exact criteria, but then I am not an expert on viruses, but flu certainly does often mutate to worst types and of course although not a virus the same rules of evolution apply to bacteria which will always do so because of antibiotics leaving those immune or partly immune to survive.
I wasn't aware it was, as you say, "my point", but I am agreeing with it.
There is plenty of data on how viruses mutate, and -- from that data -- one can establish empirical rules. That is all I am saying.
It is not impossible for COVID to mutate to become more infectious, more deadly and with a longer onset time, so as to make it a true killer virus from hell.
All I have asked is: are there any examples of viruses that have so mutated ?
But the more you know about something the better you can refine which of your data are relevant. There are data to show that lots of people die of eating fungi. If you have an unidentified fungus, those data yield a valid empirical rule against eating it. Once you have identified it as a chanterelle you can ignore the rule. We don't just know that less virulent viruses tend to outcompete more virulent ones, we also know why, and therefore we know why the principle doesn't apply in this case.
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
But, it is a difficult argument to make.
In general, mutations are good, as the virus mutates to a less deadly version (it is not in the virus' interests to kill the host).
There are have already been 20,000 mutations recorded.
So, you could argue that allowing plenty of opportunity to mutate is a good thing.
It is always easier to break something to fix it -- and that goes for viruses too. The more it is allowed to mutate, probably the better.
Not true. Viruses mutate randomly, and there is no reason to think less lethal mutations are more frequent. It's about which mutations get selected for. Killing vs not killing the host is not selective when you have a virtually infinite supply of infectable new hosts. So your claim applies to snow leopard viruses but not really to human ones.
Agree. The virus has no ability to mutate as more or less deadly. It is entirely random. It is simply a case of how easy it is to survive and multiply. A virus that kills instantly upon infection will not be successful as it won't get a chance to spread, but if a virus was easily transmittable and took time to make the host ill so that it could spread easily and yet be 100% fatal it would be a viable mutation.
The mutations are random, but the tendency is for viruses to become less deadly (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence).
Your argument assumes no correlation between transmissibility and onset of the disease.
Can you provide an example of a virus that has mutated to become more infectious AND with a longer onset time?
Actually, the strong correlation in respiratory diseases is an inverse one between transmissibility and morbidity/mortality and there is a well-understood mechanism for this. Sneezing assists in transmissibility of respiratory diseases, and sneezes are induced more in infections of the upper respiratory tract which tend to have lower morbidity/mortality levels than diseases of the lower respiratory tract (i.e. those that bind in the nose and throat, rather than in the bronchi and lungs).
That is part of what makes COVID so unusual and deadly - SARS-CoV-2 binds with just about every tissue in the human body (as every tissue has the ACE-2 receptor to which the spike protein binds, and every tissue has one of the protease surface enzymes that activate the spike protein (i.e. cleave one of the sub-units so that it opens up that part of the protein thereby allowing the virus to enter the cell and infect it)) thus it is binding in both upper and lower respiratory tracts causing both high transmissibility and high morbidity/mortality.
AND about half of all transmission happens before onset of symptoms.
Do viruses normally mutate so the onset time increases, or decreases, or stays the same ?
There must be plenty of empirical data on this, no?
If there is, I am unaware of it. Interesting question though, and one would presume there to be some evolutionary pressure towards longer onset, and selection against shorter.
Sterile debate today, defenders defending, attackers trying to pin blame, no suggestions as to a better way forward just who may have said what, when.
What’s needed is to police the restrictions seriously, none of this prosecution is a last resort Ensure the rollout of the vaccine is in the hands of logistics experts
Start investigating the claims of fraud from all sides, government, claimants etc
The UK government looks like a soft pushover waiting to be taken advantage of by its own citizens.
How on earth do you police this though. That is the problem with trying to make this law. Everyone knows it is unenforceable.
A story to illustrate.
Just over a year ago on November 6th 2019 a good friend of mine died. He had been suffering from lung cancer but his death was sudden due to a pulmonary haemorrhage whilst he was at home alone. A mutual friend had turned up but could not get in so called myself and also the police. After identifying my friend I spent a couple of hours with the policeman helping him with details and waiting for the undertakers to arrive. In that time it turned out that the total police force present in Newark that Tuesday evening was the copper I was talking to, one other who was investigating an assault in one of the villages and a desk sergeant. When I expressed surprise at how few police were on duty he said that this was pretty good for the town and that Nottingham that evening had 15 officers on duty - for a city of some 330,000 people.
Policing in this country is by consent. It has to be because there simply isn't the power to do it any other way on a day to day basis. The idea we can police covid restrictions in any meaningful manner when so many do not believe in them is completely unrealistic.
Indeed. The Tories have absolutely gutted the police of resources. The same MPs who voted again and again and again to cut funding and thus officer numbers then whine about the lack of officers.
Sterile debate today, defenders defending, attackers trying to pin blame, no suggestions as to a better way forward just who may have said what, when.
What’s needed is to police the restrictions seriously, none of this prosecution is a last resort Ensure the rollout of the vaccine is in the hands of logistics experts
Start investigating the claims of fraud from all sides, government, claimants etc
The UK government looks like a soft pushover waiting to be taken advantage of by its own citizens.
How on earth do you police this though. That is the problem with trying to make this law. Everyone knows it is unenforceable.
A story to illustrate.
Just over a year ago on November 6th 2019 a good friend of mine died. He had been suffering from lung cancer but his death was sudden due to a pulmonary haemorrhage whilst he was at home alone. A mutual friend had turned up but could not get in so called myself and also the police. After identifying my friend I spent a couple of hours with the policeman helping him with details and waiting for the undertakers to arrive. In that time it turned out that the total police force present in Newark that Tuesday evening was the copper I was talking to, one other who was investigating an assault in one of the villages and a desk sergeant. When I expressed surprise at how few police were on duty he said that this was pretty good for the town and that Nottingham that evening had 15 officers on duty - for a city of some 330,000 people.
Policing in this country is by consent. It has to be because there simply isn't the power to do it any other way on a day to day basis. The idea we can police covid restrictions in any meaningful manner when so many do not believe in them is completely unrealistic.
Indeed. The Tories have absolutely gutted the police of resources. The same MPs who voted again and again and again to cut funding and thus officer numbers then whine about the lack of officers.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
So for the last decades we have outgrown our similarly developed European neighbours, whilst in the EU? While prior to EEC entry we did not for several decades, and that is a reason for leaving? 🤔
QTWAIN.
We did in recent decades while getting progressively more estranged and on the way out from Europe.
Prior to EEC entry was of course prior to Thatcher reforming this country. The UK ceased to be the sick man of Europe because of Thatcher not EEC membership.
QTWAIY then surely...
No because you're putting the cart before the horse.
We aren't leaving because we are growing. We are perhaps growing because we haven't gotten entangled within the sclerotic EU and became estranged instead.
Sorry - another question posed by Mrs Stodge for the epidemiologists, virologists or right know-alls on here - if you have the vaccine, you achieve 100% immunity a week after the injection, I'm told.
Does that mean you can contract the virus and still transmit it to others even though you won't suffer any symptoms? In other words, does the vaccine make you asymptomatic or does it prevent you contracting the virus and being a carrier?
The answer tends to be "we don't know yet".
I'll have a guess at it reduces the risk of acting as a carrier but not to zero.
I think Richard might be right. But the purpose of all vaccines targeting the spike virus is to prevent infection. Thus if the vaccine works as intended, once your immunity is in place, it should prevent you being infected, and thus prevent you from having any virus in your body with which to infect others.
This guy @ewanbirney seems to be an expert on twitter and writes engagingly clearly. Here is a sample.
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
But, it is a difficult argument to make.
In general, mutations are good, as the virus mutates to a less deadly version (it is not in the virus' interests to kill the host).
There are have already been 20,000 mutations recorded.
So, you could argue that allowing plenty of opportunity to mutate is a good thing.
It is always easier to break something to fix it -- and that goes for viruses too. The more it is allowed to mutate, probably the better.
Not true. Viruses mutate randomly, and there is no reason to think less lethal mutations are more frequent. It's about which mutations get selected for. Killing vs not killing the host is not selective when you have a virtually infinite supply of infectable new hosts. So your claim applies to snow leopard viruses but not really to human ones.
Agree. The virus has no ability to mutate as more or less deadly. It is entirely random. It is simply a case of how easy it is to survive and multiply. A virus that kills instantly upon infection will not be successful as it won't get a chance to spread, but if a virus was easily transmittable and took time to make the host ill so that it could spread easily and yet be 100% fatal it would be a viable mutation.
The mutations are random, but the tendency is for viruses to become less deadly (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence).
Your argument assumes no correlation between transmissibility and onset of the disease.
Can you provide an example of a virus that has mutated to become more infectious AND with a longer onset time?
Actually, the strong correlation in respiratory diseases is an inverse one between transmissibility and morbidity/mortality and there is a well-understood mechanism for this. Sneezing assists in transmissibility of respiratory diseases, and sneezes are induced more in infections of the upper respiratory tract which tend to have lower morbidity/mortality levels than diseases of the lower respiratory tract (i.e. those that bind in the nose and throat, rather than in the bronchi and lungs).
That is part of what makes COVID so unusual and deadly - SARS-CoV-2 binds with just about every tissue in the human body (as every tissue has the ACE-2 receptor to which the spike protein binds, and every tissue has one of the protease surface enzymes that activate the spike protein (i.e. cleave one of the sub-units so that it opens up that part of the protein thereby allowing the virus to enter the cell and infect it)) thus it is binding in both upper and lower respiratory tracts causing both high transmissibility and high morbidity/mortality.
AND about half of all transmission happens before onset of symptoms.
Tim T. I thought you said the other day that the mutations in the virus we are currently concerned about don't affect the spike protein. But it seems clear that the mutations do affect the spike protein. Maybe only slightly but apparently significantly in terms of speed of spread of the virus. So I probably misread or misunderstood what you said?
Can you clarify what you said please and also what are your thoughts on the likelihood of current or future mutations significantly reducing the efficacy of current vaccines? Thanks.
There is no evidence that I have seen that any of the mutations to date have effected the binding domain of the spike protein. I have not seen any genomic data on the London mutation, so cannot definitively state that to be the case for it.
There are many factors, probably many we don't even know about yet, that go into making a virus transmissible. So far, at a biochemical level, I am aware of 3 related to COVID - the affinity for the spike protein to bind to the ACE-2 receptor, the efficacy of the surface proteases in activating the spike protein by cleaving it 'correctly', and some not-yet-understood role for polysaccharides on the cell surface for mediating all of this.
But then other factors relating to its morbidity will also play into transmissibility (I have mentioned infection of the upper respiratory tract causing sneezing). I am sure we do not know all the ways in which the other factors contribute to transmissibility.
In short, the spike protein, while a/the key factor, is not the only factor in transmissibility.
As always, I stand ready to learn from others on the site with better information.
Thanks. I think I follow you. So does it follow that
If there have been no mutations to date that have effected the binding domain of the spike protein
and
Current vaccines target the spike protein including the binding domain
then
No mutations to date will have effected current vaccines efficacy?
There will be no post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and EU unless there is a "substantial shift" from Brussels in the coming days, a government source has told the BBC.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
The drop in credit rating was political. The actual yields have barely moved.
In fact, as our actuaries were lamenting in the context of their pension calculations, they have continued to fall. We are in a very strange world of QE, huge deficits, the lowest gilt yields in history and almost no inflation. It is positively weird and the hot topic of economics right now. None of our conventional theories can explain this.
I'm fairly sure that economics will undergo a change much like that from alchemy to chemistry. Quite astonishing how much they get paid when there's really no such thing as facts in the subject.
(My guesses are probably worse than theirs, but one guess I'd make is that the book 'The Origin of Wealth' by a seemingly forgotten chap will be more favorably regarded in the future)
I just hope it's not too much like the Emperor's new clothes. I've worked quite hard for my savings.
My son was on the Royal Mile with me yesterday and said, "we've just walked past statues of two of the greatest men Scotland has ever produced" (Smith and Hume). It was a refreshing perspective.
There will be no post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and EU unless there is a "substantial shift" from Brussels in the coming days, a government source has told the BBC.
I'd really like to check whether Rentoul has been cribbing from PB, Alistair Meekes and/or myself, but the full article is behind a paywall. Would it be possible for someone to send me a copy?
Particularly, did Rentoul allude to any money laundering aspects?
Betfair lets people back horses that have fallen, and died, to win the race, & players that have been substituted to score the first goal in football matches. Those things actually cannot happen. Trump could have still been President, albeit he shouldn't be paid as a winner as per Betfair's rules, so wrong as this seems/is, it is not as bad as things that have been going on in Betfair markets for years
I'd really like to check whether Rentoul has been cribbing from PB, Alistair Meekes and/or myself, but the full article is behind a paywall. Would it be possible for someone to send me a copy?
Particularly, did Rentoul allude to any money laundering aspects?
Betfair lets people back horses that have fallen, and died, to win the race, & players that have been substituted to score the first goal in football matches. Those things actually cannot happen. Trump could have still been President, albeit he shouldn't be paid as a winner as per Betfair's rules, so wrong as this seems/is, it is not as bad as things that have been going on in Betfair markets for years
Isn't the time frame relevant here, Isam? We are talking some five weeks or so in the case of the so-called Next President market. In that time Betfair received a huge volume of queries and complaints to which their response was a couple of confusing and badly worded PR statements. Not sure your football and horseracing comparisons quite match that.
Also, they do not change the rules after the event in those sports, or any other that I know of. It was the moving of the goalposts that was at the heart of most of the criticism.
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
But, it is a difficult argument to make.
In general, mutations are good, as the virus mutates to a less deadly version (it is not in the virus' interests to kill the host).
There are have already been 20,000 mutations recorded.
So, you could argue that allowing plenty of opportunity to mutate is a good thing.
It is always easier to break something to fix it -- and that goes for viruses too. The more it is allowed to mutate, probably the better.
Not true. Viruses mutate randomly, and there is no reason to think less lethal mutations are more frequent. It's about which mutations get selected for. Killing vs not killing the host is not selective when you have a virtually infinite supply of infectable new hosts. So your claim applies to snow leopard viruses but not really to human ones.
Agree. The virus has no ability to mutate as more or less deadly. It is entirely random. It is simply a case of how easy it is to survive and multiply. A virus that kills instantly upon infection will not be successful as it won't get a chance to spread, but if a virus was easily transmittable and took time to make the host ill so that it could spread easily and yet be 100% fatal it would be a viable mutation.
The mutations are random, but the tendency is for viruses to become less deadly (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence).
Your argument assumes no correlation between transmissibility and onset of the disease.
Can you provide an example of a virus that has mutated to become more infectious AND with a longer onset time?
Your first sentence is a contradiction (random, but a tendency to) unless you are agreeing with my point that a more deadly disease is less likely to survive because it kills of its hosts to quickly which will lead to the effect that a less deadly strain will survive. However you can't rely on that because of the example @IshmaelZ gave and the example I gave (there may be others)
In answer to your question no I can't give an example of a virus that meets those exact criteria, but then I am not an expert on viruses, but flu certainly does often mutate to worst types and of course although not a virus the same rules of evolution apply to bacteria which will always do so because of antibiotics leaving those immune or partly immune to survive.
I wasn't aware it was, as you say, "my point", but I am agreeing with it.
There is plenty of data on how viruses mutate, and -- from that data -- one can establish empirical rules. That is all I am saying.
It is not impossible for COVID to mutate to become more infectious, more deadly and with a longer onset time, so as to make it a true killer virus from hell.
All I have asked is: are there any examples of viruses that have so mutated ?
'my point' I grant you was somewhat embedded and implied in my first post so I was stretching it to call it 'my point'. I was referring to the bit which started 'A virus that kills instantly upon infection....'
I guess the point is that in most cases the mutation that is less deadly has a greater capability of surviving than the deadly one, hence the empirical evidence you refer to, but there are logical scenarios where a deadly virus can be successful and one example of that would be where there is a long period when a person is not particularly sick, but infectious. Aids would be a good example of that. Fortunately it is not easily transmitted.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
I hope that too. But even if I'm dead I'll be watching, and still posting if necessary, e.g. where there is jingoism or facetious reactionary mocking that needs to be called out.
US saying that J&J are close to submitting preliminary data, that would be excellent news because it's a single dose vaccine and we have 40m doses for early 2021 delivery.
The government must, must speed up the vaccine rollout. The current plan to do 1m per week and only old people is no longer fit for purpose. We need to vaccinate old people and young people simultaneously to achieve rapid herd immunity rather than just looking to hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccine programme must now have the goal of eliminating the virus rather than brining down deaths and reducing the hospitalisation rate.
The lack of communication from the government on what it's plans are now given the new virus mutation is extremely worrying. The Tory rebels need to accept tier 4 restrictions but demand answers on what updates to the vaccination plan have been made now that the virus is more severe in terms of the spread than before. They need to stop banging on about how tier 4 is unnecessary, it's definitely necessary.
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
We have had the maximum restrictions that people would accept and the economy could cope with. Moreover other countries with higher restrictions - including Belgium, Italy and Spain - all have higher death rates than we do.
The idea that the government has "willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world" is ill informed bullshit.
There will be no post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and EU unless there is a "substantial shift" from Brussels in the coming days, a government source has told the BBC.
Why should Brussels shift their view just to suit the UK? If they think it’s in their own interest not to then it’s up to them.
Brussel's view is very different to that inn Dublin. Which is very different to Paris. Brexit is testing to the limits the idea that "Brussels" has one voice.
There will be no post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and EU unless there is a "substantial shift" from Brussels in the coming days, a government source has told the BBC.
Why should Brussels shift their view just to suit the UK? If they think it’s in their own interest not to then it’s up to them.
Brussel's view is very different to that inn Dublin. Which is very different to Paris. Brexit is testing to the limits the idea that "Brussels" has one voice.
Why should Brussels shift their view? That's traditionally how negotiations work. Concessions on both sides.
Sterile debate today, defenders defending, attackers trying to pin blame, no suggestions as to a better way forward just who may have said what, when.
What’s needed is to police the restrictions seriously, none of this prosecution is a last resort Ensure the rollout of the vaccine is in the hands of logistics experts
Start investigating the claims of fraud from all sides, government, claimants etc
The UK government looks like a soft pushover waiting to be taken advantage of by its own citizens.
How on earth do you police this though. That is the problem with trying to make this law. Everyone knows it is unenforceable.
A story to illustrate.
Just over a year ago on November 6th 2019 a good friend of mine died. He had been suffering from lung cancer but his death was sudden due to a pulmonary haemorrhage whilst he was at home alone. A mutual friend had turned up but could not get in so called myself and also the police. After identifying my friend I spent a couple of hours with the policeman helping him with details and waiting for the undertakers to arrive. In that time it turned out that the total police force present in Newark that Tuesday evening was the copper I was talking to, one other who was investigating an assault in one of the villages and a desk sergeant. When I expressed surprise at how few police were on duty he said that this was pretty good for the town and that Nottingham that evening had 15 officers on duty - for a city of some 330,000 people.
Policing in this country is by consent. It has to be because there simply isn't the power to do it any other way on a day to day basis. The idea we can police covid restrictions in any meaningful manner when so many do not believe in them is completely unrealistic.
Indeed. The Tories have absolutely gutted the police of resources. The same MPs who voted again and again and again to cut funding and thus officer numbers then whine about the lack of officers.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
I hope that too. But even if I'm dead I'll be watching, and still posting if necessary, e.g. where there is jingoism or facetious reactionary mocking that needs to be called out.
I'd really like to check whether Rentoul has been cribbing from PB, Alistair Meekes and/or myself, but the full article is behind a paywall. Would it be possible for someone to send me a copy?
Particularly, did Rentoul allude to any money laundering aspects?
Betfair lets people back horses that have fallen, and died, to win the race, & players that have been substituted to score the first goal in football matches. Those things actually cannot happen. Trump could have still been President, albeit he shouldn't be paid as a winner as per Betfair's rules, so wrong as this seems/is, it is not as bad as things that have been going on in Betfair markets for years
That's a point. This was a MASSIVE high profile market though. Over a billion.
Anyway, I welcome you back with a bespoke tailored song recommendation. Living with War by Neil Young.
On the EU negotiations. It looks like they are in the haggle stage. EU turning the screws on the UK to extract as much fish as possible and the UK holding out. Rightly so in the case of the UK. Fish quotas are a miniscule Brexit win to set against vast Brexit losses. But it is a win nevertheless and should be maximised,
My question to you is, does our deal on fishing concede to work with our neighbours to prevent over fishing as it does now? Will the deal allow EU to sell us the fish we need we can’t get from our waters, like cod? Will it allow our fishing industry to easily sell the fish they catch to EU country’s.
And a follow up if I may. Was the use of EU fishing boats in our waters imposed on us by EU, or something UK asked for, on basis smaller fish on the way to our waters were getting fished before they got here and UK created this policy on basis why not let them grow big and share the big ones, because without agreement we don’t have fish in our waters they fished before they get here?
Fishing policy is murk everywhere. The Icelanders are arguing with the EU and Norway; Norway is arguing with the UK and the UK is arguing with the EU. It's not clear what all those arguments are about, so I don't really know. But as best I can:
I wouldn't assume fishing rights have any effect on overfishing. The UK is just as likely to overfish outside the Common Fisheries Policy. In principle the UK along with the EU and Norway should agree how much fish should be taken out of their respective waters, as a common resource. Who does the actual fishing is a different matter.
Even under a deal, UK fish and seafood will be subject to extra tests and delay that will make shipment of live and fresh seafood difficult. Fresh produce sells at higher prices than frozen.
Quotas are assigned to member states under CFP, but it is up to member states to decide how to distribute the allocation. The sale of UK quota to foreign vessels was UK policy
I would disagree on the first of your points. The overfishing issue is primarily one of the supertrawlers which are from the Baltic states, Netherlands and Spain. The UK does not have any of these so as it stands any deal which excludes EU fishermen will automatically prevent one of the main causes of overfishing.
Dunno. Seems a ton of Londoners reacted to the new strain last night.
By rushing to the railway stations heading North.
Cummings behaviour means that it is fair game for everyone else.
Cummings was in a private environment in his own car.
He was not breathing over and risking infecting several dozen other people in his selfishness.
Well we don't know exactly what he did. But the point with him is that as a key member of the team that had just wrote and publicized the Rules he had a greater duty than a random member of the public not to flout them.
He also actually had the plague, or thought he did. I hope all of those travelling yesterday were symptomless at least.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
I hope that too. But even if I'm dead I'll be watching, and still posting if necessary, e.g. where there is jingoism or facetious reactionary mocking that needs to be called out.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
The drop in credit rating was political. The actual yields have barely moved.
In fact, as our actuaries were lamenting in the context of their pension calculations, they have continued to fall. We are in a very strange world of QE, huge deficits, the lowest gilt yields in history and almost no inflation. It is positively weird and the hot topic of economics right now. None of our conventional theories can explain this.
I'm fairly sure that economics will undergo a change much like that from alchemy to chemistry. Quite astonishing how much they get paid when there's really no such thing as facts in the subject.
(My guesses are probably worse than theirs, but one guess I'd make is that the book 'The Origin of Wealth' by a seemingly forgotten chap will be more favorably regarded in the future)
I just hope it's not too much like the Emperor's new clothes. I've worked quite hard for my savings.
My son was on the Royal Mile with me yesterday and said, "we've just walked past statues of two of the greatest men Scotland has ever produced" (Smith and Hume). It was a refreshing perspective.
I imagine the engineers and scientists will age better.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
So for the last decades we have outgrown our similarly developed European neighbours, whilst in the EU? While prior to EEC entry we did not for several decades, and that is a reason for leaving? 🤔
QTWAIN.
We did in recent decades while getting progressively more estranged and on the way out from Europe.
Prior to EEC entry was of course prior to Thatcher reforming this country. The UK ceased to be the sick man of Europe because of Thatcher not EEC membership.
QTWAIY then surely...
No because you're putting the cart before the horse.
We aren't leaving because we are growing. We are perhaps growing because we haven't gotten entangled within the sclerotic EU and became estranged instead.
The explanation is arguable, but the truth is we grew more slowly than comparable EU economies until we joined, then grew faster than them in recent decades,
The 0.4 bump to R0 looks like an optimistic assessment.
Studies of correlation between R-values and detection of the variant: which suggest an absolute increase in the R-value of between 0.39 to 0.93.
If R is close to 2 (?) then we need to lockdown the entirety of England now.
The notes say that they expect to have better data next week, at the moment there is still a lot that is unknown, and NERVTAG has moderate confidence that the variant has a substantial increase in transmissibility.
I'd really like to check whether Rentoul has been cribbing from PB, Alistair Meekes and/or myself, but the full article is behind a paywall. Would it be possible for someone to send me a copy?
Particularly, did Rentoul allude to any money laundering aspects?
Betfair lets people back horses that have fallen, and died, to win the race, & players that have been substituted to score the first goal in football matches. Those things actually cannot happen. Trump could have still been President, albeit he shouldn't be paid as a winner as per Betfair's rules, so wrong as this seems/is, it is not as bad as things that have been going on in Betfair markets for years
That's a point. This was a MASSIVE high profile market though. Over a billion.
Anyway, I welcome you back with a bespoke tailored song recommendation. Living with War by Neil Young.
Even in racing, Betfair will remove non-runners from the market before the off, and refund stakes placed after it was known a horse was withdrawn.
Dunno. Seems a ton of Londoners reacted to the new strain last night.
By rushing to the railway stations heading North.
Cummings behaviour means that it is fair game for everyone else.
Cummings was in a private environment in his own car.
He was not breathing over and risking infecting several dozen other people in his selfishness.
Well we don't know exactly what he did. But the point with him is that as a key member of the team that had just wrote and publicized the Rules he had a greater duty than a random member of the public not to flout them.
He also actually had the plague, or thought he did. I hope all of those travelling yesterday were symptomless at least.
Yep. Hypocrisy PLUS recklessness. Then no rebuke or apology. What a shoddy little episode that was.
» show previous quotes I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.
I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.
Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year
That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%
Not in England.
In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.
They got a grown up. Look what we got.
The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.
And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.
I doubt even you believe the rubbish you are spouting. Nobody else does, that's for sure
Credit where it’s due, he sure knows some long words for a ten year old.
The 0.4 bump to R0 looks like an optimistic assessment.
Studies of correlation between R-values and detection of the variant: which suggest an absolute increase in the R-value of between 0.39 to 0.93.
Begs the question then of why they used the 0.4 number in the government briefing, if that's the *lower* end of the estimate. Easier to justify immediate tier 4 if it's actually potentially an even higher increase than that.
But if it is anywhere near that high then we're surely completely fucked as the virus will be rampant even with lockdown.
The 0.4 bump to R0 looks like an optimistic assessment.
Studies of correlation between R-values and detection of the variant: which suggest an absolute increase in the R-value of between 0.39 to 0.93.
Begs the question then of why they used the 0.4 number in the government briefing, if that's the *lower* end of the estimate. Easier to justify immediate tier 4 if it's actually potentially an even higher increase than that.
But if it is anywhere near that high then we're surely completely fucked as the virus will be rampant even with lockdown.
They'd be accused of scaremongering if they said R was up by 1 but in fact it was only 0.4, and they had evidence showing it was only up by 0.4 (albeit with error bars).
I'd really like to check whether Rentoul has been cribbing from PB, Alistair Meekes and/or myself, but the full article is behind a paywall. Would it be possible for someone to send me a copy?
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
The drop in credit rating was political. The actual yields have barely moved.
In fact, as our actuaries were lamenting in the context of their pension calculations, they have continued to fall. We are in a very strange world of QE, huge deficits, the lowest gilt yields in history and almost no inflation. It is positively weird and the hot topic of economics right now. None of our conventional theories can explain this.
I'm fairly sure that economics will undergo a change much like that from alchemy to chemistry. Quite astonishing how much they get paid when there's really no such thing as facts in the subject.
(My guesses are probably worse than theirs, but one guess I'd make is that the book 'The Origin of Wealth' by a seemingly forgotten chap will be more favorably regarded in the future)
I just hope it's not too much like the Emperor's new clothes. I've worked quite hard for my savings.
My son was on the Royal Mile with me yesterday and said, "we've just walked past statues of two of the greatest men Scotland has ever produced" (Smith and Hume). It was a refreshing perspective.
I imagine the engineers and scientists will age better.
Stepping into the light and wonder - happy you.
I don't know about ageing - that pair are pretty matured already. But Hutton and Lyell would be nice too.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
The drop in credit rating was political. The actual yields have barely moved.
In fact, as our actuaries were lamenting in the context of their pension calculations, they have continued to fall. We are in a very strange world of QE, huge deficits, the lowest gilt yields in history and almost no inflation. It is positively weird and the hot topic of economics right now. None of our conventional theories can explain this.
I'm fairly sure that economics will undergo a change much like that from alchemy to chemistry. Quite astonishing how much they get paid when there's really no such thing as facts in the subject.
(My guesses are probably worse than theirs, but one guess I'd make is that the book 'The Origin of Wealth' by a seemingly forgotten chap will be more favorably regarded in the future)
I just hope it's not too much like the Emperor's new clothes. I've worked quite hard for my savings.
My son was on the Royal Mile with me yesterday and said, "we've just walked past statues of two of the greatest men Scotland has ever produced" (Smith and Hume). It was a refreshing perspective.
I imagine the engineers and scientists will age better.
Stepping into the light and wonder - happy you.
No light and wonder this year sadly. Edinburgh is usually lovely at this time of year but its seriously scaled back this year. The West Bow is still nice.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
So for the last decades we have outgrown our similarly developed European neighbours, whilst in the EU? While prior to EEC entry we did not for several decades, and that is a reason for leaving? 🤔
QTWAIN.
We did in recent decades while getting progressively more estranged and on the way out from Europe.
Prior to EEC entry was of course prior to Thatcher reforming this country. The UK ceased to be the sick man of Europe because of Thatcher not EEC membership.
QTWAIY then surely...
No because you're putting the cart before the horse.
We aren't leaving because we are growing. We are perhaps growing because we haven't gotten entangled within the sclerotic EU and became estranged instead.
The explanation is arguable, but the truth is we grew more slowly than comparable EU economies until we joined, then grew faster than them in recent decades,
So QTWAIY...😀
Did the UK start growing faster 1973-1979?
Or was it as I suggested Thatcher that turned things around?
Well it's easy to check. Considering the UK was the prior sick man we should have grown faster than Germany and France per capita from 73 to 79 as we caught up with them.
Spoiler: That did NOT happen. The UK grew slower than the original EEC members even post accession to the EEC.
I'd really like to check whether Rentoul has been cribbing from PB, Alistair Meekes and/or myself, but the full article is behind a paywall. Would it be possible for someone to send me a copy?
Particularly, did Rentoul allude to any money laundering aspects?
Betfair lets people back horses that have fallen, and died, to win the race, & players that have been substituted to score the first goal in football matches. Those things actually cannot happen. Trump could have still been President, albeit he shouldn't be paid as a winner as per Betfair's rules, so wrong as this seems/is, it is not as bad as things that have been going on in Betfair markets for years
I'd really like to check whether Rentoul has been cribbing from PB, Alistair Meekes and/or myself, but the full article is behind a paywall. Would it be possible for someone to send me a copy?
Particularly, did Rentoul allude to any money laundering aspects?
Betfair lets people back horses that have fallen, and died, to win the race, & players that have been substituted to score the first goal in football matches. Those things actually cannot happen. Trump could have still been President, albeit he shouldn't be paid as a winner as per Betfair's rules, so wrong as this seems/is, it is not as bad as things that have been going on in Betfair markets for years
Isn't the time frame relevant here, Isam? We are talking some five weeks or so in the case of the so-called Next President market. In that time Betfair received a huge volume of queries and complaints to which their response was a couple of confusing and badly worded PR statements. Not sure your football and horseracing comparisons quite match that.
Also, they do not change the rules after the event in those sports, or any other that I know of. It was the moving of the goalposts that was at the heart of most of the criticism.
I would have been fine if Betfair had made it clear when they were going settle. Ideally making it clear before the election, but if post election they had said something like: “unusually, one candidate hasn’t conceded. We’ll therefore be settling it on 2nd December when the ECV are in” I’d have been ok with that.
My problem was that I was heavily green on Betfair, but red on Spin. I’d have been heavily down if the Betfair market had been voided but Spin settled.
» show previous quotes I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.
I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.
Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year
That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%
Not in England.
In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.
They got a grown up. Look what we got.
The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.
And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.
I doubt even you believe the rubbish you are spouting. Nobody else does, that's for sure
Credit where it’s due, he sure knows some long words for a ten year old.
Is this the new thing now then, referring to Philip as the ten year old?
» show previous quotes I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.
I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.
Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year
That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%
Not in England.
In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.
They got a grown up. Look what we got.
The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.
And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.
I doubt even you believe the rubbish you are spouting. Nobody else does, that's for sure
Credit where it’s due, he sure knows some long words for a ten year old.
Is this the new thing now then, referring to Philip as the ten year old?
There will be no post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and EU unless there is a "substantial shift" from Brussels in the coming days, a government source has told the BBC.
» show previous quotes I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.
I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.
Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year
That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%
Not in England.
In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.
They got a grown up. Look what we got.
The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.
And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.
I doubt even you believe the rubbish you are spouting. Nobody else does, that's for sure
Credit where it’s due, he sure knows some long words for a ten year old.
Is this the new thing now then, referring to Philip as the ten year old?
That's an insult to ten year olds
I thought it was more akin to bullying. But what do I know.
Sterile debate today, defenders defending, attackers trying to pin blame, no suggestions as to a better way forward just who may have said what, when.
What’s needed is to police the restrictions seriously, none of this prosecution is a last resort Ensure the rollout of the vaccine is in the hands of logistics experts
Start investigating the claims of fraud from all sides, government, claimants etc
The UK government looks like a soft pushover waiting to be taken advantage of by its own citizens.
How on earth do you police this though. That is the problem with trying to make this law. Everyone knows it is unenforceable.
A story to illustrate.
Just over a year ago on November 6th 2019 a good friend of mine died. He had been suffering from lung cancer but his death was sudden due to a pulmonary haemorrhage whilst he was at home alone. A mutual friend had turned up but could not get in so called myself and also the police. After identifying my friend I spent a couple of hours with the policeman helping him with details and waiting for the undertakers to arrive. In that time it turned out that the total police force present in Newark that Tuesday evening was the copper I was talking to, one other who was investigating an assault in one of the villages and a desk sergeant. When I expressed surprise at how few police were on duty he said that this was pretty good for the town and that Nottingham that evening had 15 officers on duty - for a city of some 330,000 people.
Policing in this country is by consent. It has to be because there simply isn't the power to do it any other way on a day to day basis. The idea we can police covid restrictions in any meaningful manner when so many do not believe in them is completely unrealistic.
Indeed. The Tories have absolutely gutted the police of resources. The same MPs who voted again and again and again to cut funding and thus officer numbers then whine about the lack of officers.
Number of officers in England and Wales increased by 20k from June 19 to June 20.
Are you sure that is what the paper shows? Although the target is 20,000 more police officers, we are not there yet, with the report showing a record increase of 6,000. Boris won in 2019 by running on Labour's 2017 platform, when Jeremy Corbyn had criticised Theresa May for axing 20,000 coppers, and that is why Boris's target is 20,000.
There will be no post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and EU unless there is a "substantial shift" from Brussels in the coming days, a government source has told the BBC.
Why should Brussels shift their view just to suit the UK? If they think it’s in their own interest not to then it’s up to them.
Brussel's view is very different to that inn Dublin. Which is very different to Paris. Brexit is testing to the limits the idea that "Brussels" has one voice.
And certainly testing to the limit the idea that "the UK" has one voice (for those poor simpletons who still hold to that fairy tale), unless you think an Etonian bellow drowning out the rest counts as one voice.
The 0.4 bump to R0 looks like an optimistic assessment.
Studies of correlation between R-values and detection of the variant: which suggest an absolute increase in the R-value of between 0.39 to 0.93.
Begs the question then of why they used the 0.4 number in the government briefing, if that's the *lower* end of the estimate. Easier to justify immediate tier 4 if it's actually potentially an even higher increase than that.
But if it is anywhere near that high then we're surely completely fucked as the virus will be rampant even with lockdown.
They'd be accused of scaremongering if they said R was up by 1 but in fact it was only 0.4, and they had evidence showing it was only up by 0.4 (albeit with error bars).
I think you are correct that the government are using the most defensible figures.
» show previous quotes I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.
I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.
Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year
That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%
Not in England.
In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.
They got a grown up. Look what we got.
The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.
And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.
I doubt even you believe the rubbish you are spouting. Nobody else does, that's for sure
Credit where it’s due, he sure knows some long words for a ten year old.
Is this the new thing now then, referring to Philip as the ten year old?
That's an insult to ten year olds
I thought it was more akin to bullying. But what do I know.
Sadly there does seem to be an element of truth in that and it is really not necessary
Comments
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
Rephrased, it’s an average of 29 per day per GP surgery.
Obviously some are going to be far bigger than others, but on another board, a practice nurse said that 6 nurses at her surgery gave over 500 in one day (admittedly over 11 hours work, which would probably not be sustainable long-term).
Do viruses normally mutate so the onset time increases, or decreases, or stays the same ?
There must be plenty of empirical data on this, no?
In answer to your question no I can't give an example of a virus that meets those exact criteria, but then I am not an expert on viruses, but flu certainly does often mutate to worst types and of course although not a virus the same rules of evolution apply to bacteria which will always do so because of antibiotics leaving those immune or partly immune to survive.
We're also doing this in the middle of winter - the weather is poor - what if we get a 2-week cold spell with snow and ice which will reduce the ability of people to travel. I presume we won't ask people to risk breaking a leg on black ice just to get a Covid vaccination.
Lines of people queuing up, Metropolis-like, to be vaccinated may be the ideal but it bumps into reality.
Can you clarify what you said please and also what are your thoughts on the likelihood of current or future mutations significantly reducing the efficacy of current vaccines? Thanks.
Particularly, did Rentoul allude to any money laundering aspects?
We should be aiming for 1m per day once we get the AZ stream online. If the J&J vaccine passes MHRA certification in early Feb as expected then we could be in a really good position to get this whole thing done by end of April.
We did in recent decades while getting progressively more estranged and on the way out from Europe.
Prior to EEC entry was of course prior to Thatcher reforming this country. The UK ceased to be the sick man of Europe because of Thatcher not EEC membership.
I also give reasons why I believe what I say.
There is plenty of data on how viruses mutate, and -- from that data -- one can establish empirical rules. That is all I am saying.
It is not impossible for COVID to mutate to become more infectious, more deadly and with a longer onset time, so as to make it a true killer virus from hell.
All I have asked is: are there any examples of viruses that have so mutated ?
This probably applies more to England and Wales than Scotland, which has more or less kept on top of cases recently. In Scotland's case, the new measures are more precautionary, in light of the new strain
The new SA variant seems to be both more transmissible and more lethal to the young and healthy.
(My guesses are probably worse than theirs, but one guess I'd make is that the book 'The Origin of Wealth' by a seemingly forgotten chap will be more favorably regarded in the future)
I just hope it's not too much like the Emperor's new clothes. I've worked quite hard for my savings.
Like with the Brexit port grants (which can't be right, surely), looks like some places are getting a better deal than others.
Sorry, in a suspicious mood again today.
There are many factors, probably many we don't even know about yet, that go into making a virus transmissible. So far, at a biochemical level, I am aware of 3 related to COVID - the affinity for the spike protein to bind to the ACE-2 receptor, the efficacy of the surface proteases in activating the spike protein by cleaving it 'correctly', and some not-yet-understood role for polysaccharides on the cell surface for mediating all of this.
But then other factors relating to its morbidity will also play into transmissibility (I have mentioned infection of the upper respiratory tract causing sneezing). I am sure we do not know all the ways in which the other factors contribute to transmissibility.
In short, the spike protein, while a/the key factor, is not the only factor in transmissibility.
As always, I stand ready to learn from others on the site with better information.
If there is, I am unaware of it. Interesting question though, and one would presume there to be some evolutionary pressure towards longer onset, and selection against shorter.
Rats...
We aren't leaving because we are growing. We are perhaps growing because we haven't gotten entangled within the sclerotic EU and became estranged instead.
Here is a sample.
If there have been no mutations to date that have effected the binding domain of the spike protein
and
Current vaccines target the spike protein including the binding domain
then
No mutations to date will have effected current vaccines efficacy?
Also, they do not change the rules after the event in those sports, or any other that I know of. It was the moving of the goalposts that was at the heart of most of the criticism.
I guess the point is that in most cases the mutation that is less deadly has a greater capability of surviving than the deadly one, hence the empirical evidence you refer to, but there are logical scenarios where a deadly virus can be successful and one example of that would be where there is a long period when a person is not particularly sick, but infectious. Aids would be a good example of that. Fortunately it is not easily transmitted.
To be honest I think we are all agreeing.
The government must, must speed up the vaccine rollout. The current plan to do 1m per week and only old people is no longer fit for purpose. We need to vaccinate old people and young people simultaneously to achieve rapid herd immunity rather than just looking to hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccine programme must now have the goal of eliminating the virus rather than brining down deaths and reducing the hospitalisation rate.
The lack of communication from the government on what it's plans are now given the new virus mutation is extremely worrying. The Tory rebels need to accept tier 4 restrictions but demand answers on what updates to the vaccination plan have been made now that the virus is more severe in terms of the spread than before. They need to stop banging on about how tier 4 is unnecessary, it's definitely necessary.
The idea that the government has "willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world" is ill informed bullshit.
Anyway, I welcome you back with a bespoke tailored song recommendation. Living with War by Neil Young.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/12/f1-2020-season-review.html
It's in the live feed it's a very long link.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-55384404
The 0.4 bump to R0 looks like an optimistic assessment.
Stepping into the light and wonder - happy you.
So QTWAIY...😀
I don't know what the hell UK Gov is doing, it's time to announce a lockdown for England.
But if it is anywhere near that high then we're surely completely fucked as the virus will be rampant even with lockdown.
It's quite a short piece, rather superficial and error-strewn. It wouldn't pass muster as a thread-header on here, that's for sure.
It wasn't cribbed though, and he did name-check Alastair Meeks and this site, so that's fairy nuff, even if he did spell the Site name wrong.
I'll forward if you like but frankly not worth a read.
Or was it as I suggested Thatcher that turned things around?
Well it's easy to check. Considering the UK was the prior sick man we should have grown faster than Germany and France per capita from 73 to 79 as we caught up with them.
Spoiler: That did NOT happen. The UK grew slower than the original EEC members even post accession to the EEC.
My problem was that I was heavily green on Betfair, but red on Spin. I’d have been heavily down if the Betfair market had been voided but Spin settled.