On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Check your workings, 2 doses remember unless they are the rubbish Oxford one!
Chesterfield reckons they will have 25% of people eligible done by Easter at best
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
2 doses, so two months.
Not that I disagree with your basic point. I think if we can manage 400,000 a day we’ll have done really well.
But once around 30% of the population has been vaccinated, especially the most vulnerable 30%, it should make life much easier all around.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Check your workings, 2 doses remember unless they are the rubbish Oxford one!
Chesterfield reckons they will have 25% of people eligible done by Easter at best
If the Johnson and Johnson one works, its 1 dose, no minus million degrees.
Surely the language teaching lobby has always told us that learning one foreign language helps with others. If true (which tbh I doubt) then French, German and Spanish results should be on the up at those schools.
There's some research I think which confirms that. I believe teaching of foreign languages in British schools is declining generally, though. Or is it just European languages?
We don't even teach English in our schools. I went to a grammar school in the 1970s and was never taught English grammar. And if you don't know how your own language works, how on earth are you going to be able to learn other ones?
I was 11 when I went to America in 1975, and that was the first place that I got taught English grammar. It was taught in a very rigid manner, but very useful later on.
English and maths were well taught in Georgia, the rest of the subjects much less so.
I went to school in DC for two years and learned almost nothing except how to be an expert shot with a pistol on the school's shooting range.
British kids learn almost no English grammar. I have had plenty of native English speaking A level students who can't name the seventeen English verbs that can't take the present continuous tense. I have also met foreign students of English (usually Dutch or German) who can.
So if a British student has achieved some proficiency in one foreign language they will almost certainly do better at a second just because they have finally had to learn some grammar.
Really wish I was a linguist. Rather be a linguist than most other things I wish I was. I've heard that when learning a new language there comes a kind of "dam breaking" moment when you make a leap and you reach the next step. Two or three of those and you arrive at competency. Then it's about fine-tuning, playing with it, getting the quirky tics & tacs, and lo you're fluent. I've never managed the first quantum move as an adult. School French was ok but beyond that, no. I had total immersion German lessons on the company for 12 weeks when I lived in Vienna and yet did not progress much beyond "das ist ein hund". I nailed that - totally - but then seemed to get stuck. On a brighter note, I'm doing Spiral soup to nuts atm and I think it's doing wonders for my French. Can follow bits of it without looking at the subtitles.
[..]
I don't think it's like this. (I have learnt other languages to a reasonably high level). Fluency in languages comes from putting in the hard work and exposing yourself to listening, speaking, reading and writing. Of these, listening is the most important. You need to do lots of it.
About 5% of the population is a genius at languages; maybe 10% just don't have the way of thinking. For the other 85%, it's a case of application and exposure and you will get to a decent standard.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply it wasn't more about exposure and putting in the effort as opposed to innate talent. I'm sure it is. Most things are. But you do get those quite sudden jumps forward, don't you? It's not linear. Again, like most things. For a while, as you try to learn something, you're getting better but you don't realize it. Then, boom, you do. And onto the next level. Key is to not give up before that first jump.
I see what you mean. When I learnt a musical instrument, I started out with enthusiasm; then thought after doing it for a while, this sounds pretty horrible; then no, actually, this is music; cheered up by that, then I got to a plateau: it's OK but I'm not very good. But that's more about motivation than anything. You get fewer Eureka moments with language learning than other things because there is relatively little technique involved, where issues can be unblocked by doing things in a different way
There are milestones in language learning though, starting off by managing to successfully buy what you want from a shop (maybe not "eine Schachtel Streichhölzer" to begin with, though) and working up to playing an active part in a conversation in a noisy pub with people you don't know very well who keep changing the topic.
The UK is paying $37 per dose of the Moderna vaccine. The EU is paying $18 per dose. Both buyers ordered 40m doses. The EU offered the UK to join its buying consortium, but the UK turned them down. This is the team negotiating Brexit terms of trade.
The British have vaccinated 500k people already. The EU haven't vaccinated anyone.
The EU offered the UK to join its buying consortium, but the UK turned them down and got the vaccines first. This is the team negotiating Brexit terms of trade.
But it’s not the end picture though? If the others vaccinate quicker, even though giving us head start go passed us. they will have vaccinated faster at half the price in the end picture? Plus learnt from our pilot scheme giving it to people with allergies for example? 😕
But that's not the case. The EU is not going to be vaccinating quicker than us.
We will get through our priority list before the EU does the same. Quibbling over pennies per dose but getting your doses months later is a very false economy when you look at the cost of Covid in both lives and damage to the economy.
Plus malcolm's numbers didn't come with a source and don't match what anyone else is saying. Everyone else is reporting we're paying a bit more but getting the vaccines month's sooner - paying a bit more but getting it sooner is fantastic value for money in the grand scheme of things.
What's more, the Spiegel article strongly suggested that it was French protectionism of Sanofi that led to smaller later EU orders.
Even more so now that the GSK/Sanofi vaccine has failed to launch. The EU has got huge dependence on CureVac coming up with a working vaccine.
I have to say the whole EU vaccine scheme looks to me like one of those "how not to do something" examples that opponents of the EU will use in the future. Between Pfizer, Moderna, AZ and J&J the UK is probably second best placed in the world wrt vaccines after Japan.
Har Har Har , what utter jingoistic bollox.
Max is being absolutely factual. Indeed I'm genuinely curious why he put us behind Japan?
There's nothing jingoistic in that.
Japan put their money behind Pfizer and Moderna, their portfolio is really good.
Indeed it is but I'm assuming they're locked out of Moderna like the rest of the non-US world until the Spring still?
Pfizer seems to be the golden goose that the UK, Japan and USA were wise to back early. Remarkable it was invented by a German company but their order only went in on Remembrance Day so they're struggling for rollout compared to the rest of us.
Yeah but their Pfizer order is massive. Obviously there is a lot of luck involved because had mRNA vaccines had serious issues they'd be completey fucked. One of the reasons our overall portfolio is so strong is that the taskforce went for a wide and deep strategy with multiple vectors and mechanisms. It's genuinely the only credit I can give the government in this whole mess.
What about testing? We test far more than any other European Country
Nope, there's no point in doing so many tests if it isn't backed by a proper contact tracing/testing and isolation scheme. Our testing has turned into an expensive monitoring programme. We might as well not bother.
Australia has an excellent Contact Tracies process.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
I agree absolutely. But the real test is how quickly we get everybody (who needs to be) vaccinated, and the race between us and other countries in doing this has only just begun. There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.
YouGov: Please note that fieldwork for this latest survey was conducted 15-16 December, prior to the announcement of the new Tier 4 coronavirus restrictions.
I doubt it is an explicit, you agree the deal on fish and we will call off the hounds. But I think it is a factor, which is concentrating minds. Johnson is desperate to get goods flowing again across the Channel, which to some extent depends on France doing the UK a favour*.
More from our Kate Connelly at the BioNTech presser in Germany:
Uğur Şahin, the CEO of BioNTech, the German biotechnology company behind the first Covid 19 vaccine, was asked at a press briefing when he believed the world might be able to return to normal, following the roll out of vaccine programmes.
Şahin said:
We need a new definition of ‘normal’. The virus will stay with us for the next 10 years. We need to get used to the fact there’ll be more outbreaks.
However, a ‘new normal’ would mean not having to go into lockdown, businesses not having to close, and hospitalisations not being as commonplace. “That can happen by the end of the summer,” he said.
He said the vaccine would not change lives quickly. He said:
This winter we will not have an impact on the infection numbers. But we must have an impact so that next winter can be the new normal.
The company said it was “scouting every location” to expand its production of the vaccine as much as possible, to boost what it called the “scarcity of the vaccine”.
It said its capacity by the end of 2021 was for 1.3 billion doses.
Because he can't be negative. It's genuinely a problem almost uniquely applicable to him, that is why he is the worst PM for this crisis.
To be fair, if he had stood up in March and said, this shit, this is for the next 2 years. He would have been bashed from pillar to post for being negative.
And that's the thing democracies have to be careful about.
The right message- the one you can imagine a great leader giving- was one about how it will be tough, probably for a few years. That there would be a cost, in lives, disruption and wealth. But that, together, we would beat this wretched virus, and that would be our finest hour. The sort of thing the Queen did in her "we'll meet again" speech.
But, as a nation, we decided to put a superficially amiable rogue in power. Someone who has a lifetime of telling people what they want to hear, not necessarily what they need. And that's on us.
Frost has pushed our (Definitely not a pair of aces) hand to the absolute limit with regards to an EU deal. If it pays off, then I'll have to say well done. If we fail to reach a deal then it'll be all for naught.
A Sinn Fein politician wants and looks forward to a united Ireland by peaceful means, acknowledges the troubles but emphasises those days are in the past. It seems uncontroversial and certainly unsurprising.
Either her Gaelic isn't very good, or Google Translate isn't!
Both are probably true. Irish is taught in schools but no-one speaks it, so there is not much of a corpus for Google Translate to learn from. Ireland is no Israel, where Hebrew was successfully resurrected.
Ireland (most of it anyway) is independent but it's language doesn't appear to be doing so well. There's little prospect of Welsh independence but the language seems to be coming back. Scots Gaelic is on it's last legs, apparently.
Why any parent would want to impede their child's education in this way escapes me completely.
Surely the language teaching lobby has always told us that learning one foreign language helps with others. If true (which tbh I doubt) then French, German and Spanish results should be on the up at those schools.
There's some research I think which confirms that. I believe teaching of foreign languages in British schools is declining generally, though. Or is it just European languages?
We don't even teach English in our schools. I went to a grammar school in the 1970s and was never taught English grammar. And if you don't know how your own language works, how on earth are you going to be able to learn other ones?
I was 11 when I went to America in 1975, and that was the first place that I got taught English grammar. It was taught in a very rigid manner, but very useful later on.
English and maths were well taught in Georgia, the rest of the subjects much less so.
I went to school in DC for two years and learned almost nothing except how to be an expert shot with a pistol on the school's shooting range.
British kids learn almost no English grammar. I have had plenty of native English speaking A level students who can't name the seventeen English verbs that can't take the present continuous tense. I have also met foreign students of English (usually Dutch or German) who can.
So if a British student has achieved some proficiency in one foreign language they will almost certainly do better at a second just because they have finally had to learn some grammar.
Really wish I was a linguist. Rather be a linguist than most other things I wish I was. I've heard that when learning a new language there comes a kind of "dam breaking" moment when you make a leap and you reach the next step. Two or three of those and you arrive at competency. Then it's about fine-tuning, playing with it, getting the quirky tics & tacs, and lo you're fluent. I've never managed the first quantum move as an adult. School French was ok but beyond that, no. I had total immersion German lessons on the company for 12 weeks when I lived in Vienna and yet did not progress much beyond "das ist ein hund". I nailed that - totally - but then seemed to get stuck. On a brighter note, I'm doing Spiral soup to nuts atm and I think it's doing wonders for my French. Can follow bits of it without looking at the subtitles.
[..]
I don't think it's like this. (I have learnt other languages to a reasonably high level). Fluency in languages comes from putting in the hard work and exposing yourself to listening, speaking, reading and writing. Of these, listening is the most important. You need to do lots of it.
About 5% of the population is a genius at languages; maybe 10% just don't have the way of thinking. For the other 85%, it's a case of application and exposure and you will get to a decent standard.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply it wasn't more about exposure and putting in the effort as opposed to innate talent. I'm sure it is. Most things are. But you do get those quite sudden jumps forward, don't you? It's not linear. Again, like most things. For a while, as you try to learn something, you're getting better but you don't realize it. Then, boom, you do. And onto the next level. Key is to not give up before that first jump.
I see what you mean. When I learnt a musical instrument, I started out with enthusiasm; then thought after doing it for a while, this sounds pretty horrible; then no, actually, this is music; cheered up by that, then I got to a plateau: it's OK but I'm not very good. But that's more about motivation than anything. You get fewer Eureka moments with language learning than other things because there is relatively little technique involved, where issues can be unblocked by doing things in a different way
Yes. Musical instruments and other languages. The big 2 of things that people should do but mostly don't. Myself no exception. School French. House of the Rising Sun on guitar.
"There is" ... clang clang ... "a house" ... clang clang ... "in nooo orleans".
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Check your workings, 2 doses remember unless they are the rubbish Oxford one!
Chesterfield reckons they will have 25% of people eligible done by Easter at best
If the Johnson and Johnson one works, its 1 dose, no minus million degrees.
Yeah and 30m of those doses would be a godsend, I think they're due to deliver in March/April to the US and UK. The US have indicated they expect to receive trial data very early in January so hopefully it gets approved soon after.
It could be a huge boost to the world to have a single dose vaccine that doesn't need super cold storage.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
I agree absolutely. But the real test is how quickly we get everybody (who needs to be) vaccinated, and the race between us and other countries in doing this has only just begun. There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.
That is true but we already have 500k vaccinated. IIRC the priority list is 20m so that's already 2.5% of the priority list done already - not bad in a fortnight. First dose only, but the first dose alone still provides a decent level of protection after 10 days.
There are many things that have not gone right this year but when it comes to vaccine procurement I wouldn't swap the UK's position with another country in Europe right now.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Philips Hi Ho Hi Ho its off to WTO we go is unfortunately consistent with the moronic nature of his Brexit postings of late.
Yep. WTO not and never an option. Deal coming. I again implore people not to be relieved or surprised. That's Johnson's game. Unless we're massive Johnsonites - like PT and MM etc - let us not play it. Let's just say "about time" and proceed to audit the detail, see if there are any good bits, any at all.
Reviving this from the old thread as I'm interested in where the UK figure was sourced from. The article doesn't quote a UK figure for the Moderna vaccine anywhere.
The UK is paying $37 per dose of the Moderna vaccine. The EU is paying $18 per dose. Both buyers ordered 40m doses. The EU offered the UK to join its buying consortium, but the UK turned them down. This is the team negotiating Brexit terms of trade.
Hi Malcom. Where are you getting the Uk figure from?
I can't find a reliable estimate since the summer (and we hadn't ordered 40m then).
I was talking this morning to a chum whose son is high up in public health and sits in the Covid COBRA meetings.
Word from him was that this new mutation is bastard contagious....
That’s why the Times quote about Supercovid’s extra infectiousness leapt out at me. They didn’t cite the 0.4 lower range of R, but the higher one. 0.93. The article (and a similar one on Sky News) was clearly implying that scientists, even at this early stage, are tending to pessimism.
Brrrrr
Discussion here yesterday suggested it may just hang around in the body for longer, which wouldn't be so bad. But other sources (for example the good Dr John Campbell's video on it - his videoblogs are excellent, if you havent caught them) suggest it has other advantages including being better able to fight off the immune system's defences, which isn't so good.
Another suggestion in The Times is that Supercovid may still respond to vaccines, but be more resistant. In other words Pfizer’s 95% may go down to 60% or whatever.
That's an irresponsible suggestion because we don't know that there is any effect on the vaccine yet. Speculation here strikes me as counterproductive.
Then tell that to the Times science writer. I am merely conveying what he says
‘It’s unlikely that the vaccines won’t work but it is possible that they won’t work quite so well‘
To me, this is the only truly crucial question about the variant. Will the vax still work? If that's a "yes" then we're just looking at more difficult last 6 months of this pandemic rather than the start of a new one.
I am refusing to think about your second alternative there. Just too awful to process this side of xmas.
In that unlikely event, it would actually be very simple to change the mRNA vaccines (the original ones were designed in days). If the situation were sufficiently bad, I think it fairly probable we'd move straight to a large scale trial and mass production of the new vaccine.
Yes, I think that's the beauty of the mRNA model, it can be adjusted very quickly and then manufacturing can be switched over. It's a huge shame that the government didn't back the Imperial vaccine and spin it out into an mRNA focused biotech. It is definitely a missed opportunity for UK pharma and we had ample justification to provide state subsidies in this scenario with a golden stake taken in the spin off.
We could still fund the tech for the future on grounds of national security / pandemic response preparedness.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Because he can't be negative. It's genuinely a problem almost uniquely applicable to him, that is why he is the worst PM for this crisis.
To be fair, if he had stood up in March and said, this shit, this is for the next 2 years. He would have been bashed from pillar to post for being negative.
And that's the thing democracies have to be careful about.
The right message- the one you can imagine a great leader giving- was one about how it will be tough, probably for a few years. That there would be a cost, in lives, disruption and wealth. But that, together, we would beat this wretched virus, and that would be our finest hour. The sort of thing the Queen did in her "we'll meet again" speech.
But, as a nation, we decided to put a superficially amiable rogue in power. Someone who has a lifetime of telling people what they want to hear, not necessarily what they need. And that's on us.
Wasn't it Druncker who said of the 2008 financial crisis "We know what has to be done, but we don't know how to do it and get re-elected"?
YouGov: Please note that fieldwork for this latest survey was conducted 15-16 December, prior to the announcement of the new Tier 4 coronavirus restrictions.
Was that a period of unusual government competence or something?
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
2 doses, so two months.
Not that I disagree with your basic point. I think if we can manage 400,000 a day we’ll have done really well.
But once around 30% of the population has been vaccinated, especially the most vulnerable 30%, it should make life much easier all around.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Why not?
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
Frost has pushed our (Definitely not a pair of aces) hand to the absolute limit with regards to an EU deal. If it pays off, then I'll have to say well done. If we fail to reach a deal then it'll be all for naught.
Fingers crossed.
Depends on your definition of success. If success for you is a deal where the UK side has given away little in exchange for getting little in return, I think Frost might deliver on that.
Leaving aside that I don't share Frost's defensive concerns, my observations:
In general people focus more on what they get than what they pay.
A zero-sum approach misses out on opportunity for win/wins
The smaller party gains more from access than the bigger party. eg the UK can access 27 additional EU members, while those parties can only access one additional market. If the UK has greater potential from more access, it also loses more by rejecting that access, as with Frost's deal.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Clem Attlee married a Tory!
He and MacDonald served in government with the Tories, never mind marrying them.
And I’d point out that Attlee’s decision to serve with the Tories was one factor in convincing huge numbers of previously sceptical voters that Labour weren’t unhinged lunatics who would trash the place, but serious political figures. Heck, it even made Thatcher into an admirer.
(It didn’t last beyond Bevan and Shinwell getting into office, but that’s another story.)
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Why not?
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
Primarily because procuring 2 million a day seems implausible. Procurement seems tougher than distribution as it stands.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Why not?
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
Primarily because procuring 2 million a day seems implausible. Procurement seems tougher than distribution as it stands.
The discussion was about supply not being a problem. If it is not then 2 million injected a day will be easy
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
I even voted for him (twice)
I even did once.
Albeit I was only 18 at the time so blame the innocence of youth, I also regretted it afterwards for what Brown became. Not for Blair, for Brown though.
Voted against him once too, because of Brown not Blair.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Wilson was a little like Johnson, so long as it worked for Harold, as far as he was concerned it worked. I don't think he had any particular disdain for Tories, except when it benefitted him with the party.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
Because he can't be negative. It's genuinely a problem almost uniquely applicable to him, that is why he is the worst PM for this crisis.
To be fair, if he had stood up in March and said, this shit, this is for the next 2 years. He would have been bashed from pillar to post for being negative.
And that's the thing democracies have to be careful about.
The right message- the one you can imagine a great leader giving- was one about how it will be tough, probably for a few years. That there would be a cost, in lives, disruption and wealth. But that, together, we would beat this wretched virus, and that would be our finest hour. The sort of thing the Queen did in her "we'll meet again" speech.
But, as a nation, we decided to put a superficially amiable rogue in power. Someone who has a lifetime of telling people what they want to hear, not necessarily what they need. And that's on us.
Wasn't it Druncker who said of the 2008 financial crisis "We know what has to be done, but we don't know how to do it and get re-elected"?
Yup. And whilst I don't buy into the "this generation is the worst, most selfish ever" meme, it probably is the case that the technology of persuasive soundbites has got more effective than is good for us as a society. It leaves us vulnerable to not those with the best ideas, but the ones that sound best in a three word slogan.
I can't remember any of the details, but I've got a recollection of a sci-fi dystopia where the science of advertising had got so good that people literally had to buy the products they saw advertised. We're not anywhere near there yet, but it's a risk to be aware of.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Wilson was a little like Johnson, so long as it worked for Harold, as far as he was concerned it worked. I don't think he had any particular disdain for Tories, except when it benefitted him with the party.
He was a massively smarter politician, if equally without principle.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Why not?
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
I think it has been explained by other posters better versed in the subject than myself
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
They'd be better off with Burnham or Dan Jarvis, but they've both opted out, due to the binfire of the Corbyn era.
My only hope for SKS is that he is a Neil Kinnock figure i.e. gets rid of the idiots and steers them back to a place of viability in England. They're all over in Scotland, but they haven't faced up to that yet.
I was talking this morning to a chum whose son is high up in public health and sits in the Covid COBRA meetings.
Word from him was that this new mutation is bastard contagious....
That’s why the Times quote about Supercovid’s extra infectiousness leapt out at me. They didn’t cite the 0.4 lower range of R, but the higher one. 0.93. The article (and a similar one on Sky News) was clearly implying that scientists, even at this early stage, are tending to pessimism.
Brrrrr
Discussion here yesterday suggested it may just hang around in the body for longer, which wouldn't be so bad. But other sources (for example the good Dr John Campbell's video on it - his videoblogs are excellent, if you havent caught them) suggest it has other advantages including being better able to fight off the immune system's defences, which isn't so good.
Another suggestion in The Times is that Supercovid may still respond to vaccines, but be more resistant. In other words Pfizer’s 95% may go down to 60% or whatever.
That's an irresponsible suggestion because we don't know that there is any effect on the vaccine yet. Speculation here strikes me as counterproductive.
Then tell that to the Times science writer. I am merely conveying what he says
‘It’s unlikely that the vaccines won’t work but it is possible that they won’t work quite so well‘
To me, this is the only truly crucial question about the variant. Will the vax still work? If that's a "yes" then we're just looking at more difficult last 6 months of this pandemic rather than the start of a new one.
I am refusing to think about your second alternative there. Just too awful to process this side of xmas.
In that unlikely event, it would actually be very simple to change the mRNA vaccines (the original ones were designed in days). If the situation were sufficiently bad, I think it fairly probable we'd move straight to a large scale trial and mass production of the new vaccine.
Yes, I think that's the beauty of the mRNA model, it can be adjusted very quickly and then manufacturing can be switched over. It's a huge shame that the government didn't back the Imperial vaccine and spin it out into an mRNA focused biotech. It is definitely a missed opportunity for UK pharma and we had ample justification to provide state subsidies in this scenario with a golden stake taken in the spin off.
We could still fund the tech for the future on grounds of national security / pandemic response preparedness.
Yes, I guess we could but I don't think anyone in the government really understands the sector enough. Especially now that the vaccine taskforce seems to have been disbanded. There's all this bullshit talk about AI and data science from a bunch of numpties but we have got amazing scientific research in the country we don't properly commercialise.
Pfizer is the toughest vaccine to distribute and we're also doing the hardest brackets (80+ & care homes) first.
So with easier to distribute vaccines and easier age groups and more practice we should see superior rollout numbers over time. The limiting factor will be how much vaccine we actually have in the country not distribution within the country (imo).
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
They'd be better off with Burnham or Dan Jarvis, but they've both opted out, due to the binfire of the Corbyn era.
My only hope for SKS is that he is a Neil Kinnock figure i.e. gets rid of the idiots and steers them back to a place of viability in England. They're all over in Scotland, but they haven't faced up to that yet.
Pfizer is the toughest vaccine to distribute and we're also doing the hardest brackets (80+ & care homes) first.
So with easier to distribute vaccines and easier age groups and more practice we should see superior rollout numbers over time. The limiting factor will be how much vaccine we actually have in the country not distribution within the country (imo).
Care homes are particularly difficult to vaccinate with the Pfizer jab because you can't take the jab to the home, you need to take the patients to the hospital. Not at all easy logistically. People who can make their own way to where they need to be vaccinated is easier.
If it wasn't for the supercooled logistics it would be easier to take the doses to the home and get it done quickly.
Because he can't be negative. It's genuinely a problem almost uniquely applicable to him, that is why he is the worst PM for this crisis.
To be fair, if he had stood up in March and said, this shit, this is for the next 2 years. He would have been bashed from pillar to post for being negative.
And that's the thing democracies have to be careful about.
The right message- the one you can imagine a great leader giving- was one about how it will be tough, probably for a few years. That there would be a cost, in lives, disruption and wealth. But that, together, we would beat this wretched virus, and that would be our finest hour. The sort of thing the Queen did in her "we'll meet again" speech.
But, as a nation, we decided to put a superficially amiable rogue in power. Someone who has a lifetime of telling people what they want to hear, not necessarily what they need. And that's on us.
Wasn't it Druncker who said of the 2008 financial crisis "We know what has to be done, but we don't know how to do it and get re-elected"?
Yup. And whilst I don't buy into the "this generation is the worst, most selfish ever" meme, it probably is the case that the technology of persuasive soundbites has got more effective than is good for us as a society. It leaves us vulnerable to not those with the best ideas, but the ones that sound best in a three word slogan.
I can't remember any of the details, but I've got a recollection of a sci-fi dystopia where the science of advertising had got so good that people literally had to buy the products they saw advertised. We're not anywhere near there yet, but it's a risk to be aware of.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
Unfortunately, most of them are obsessives who prefer theoretical purity and Tory governments.
The likes of Bastani, Sarkar, Burgon, Pidcock will never compromise because they don’t understand perfection is the real enemy of improvement.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Why not?
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
I don't know how many thousands a day got this years flu vaccine but around here it was a drive through operation just stick you arm out of the window.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
They'd be better off with Burnham or Dan Jarvis, but they've both opted out, due to the binfire of the Corbyn era.
My only hope for SKS is that he is a Neil Kinnock figure i.e. gets rid of the idiots and steers them back to a place of viability in England. They're all over in Scotland, but they haven't faced up to that yet.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Why not?
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
I don't know how many thousands a day got this years flu vaccine but around here it was a drive through operation just stick you arm out of the window.
I think the AZ and J&J vaccines will both have the same sort of service. It's a shame that the latter wasn't first out of the door.
I was talking this morning to a chum whose son is high up in public health and sits in the Covid COBRA meetings.
Word from him was that this new mutation is bastard contagious....
That’s why the Times quote about Supercovid’s extra infectiousness leapt out at me. They didn’t cite the 0.4 lower range of R, but the higher one. 0.93. The article (and a similar one on Sky News) was clearly implying that scientists, even at this early stage, are tending to pessimism.
Brrrrr
Discussion here yesterday suggested it may just hang around in the body for longer, which wouldn't be so bad. But other sources (for example the good Dr John Campbell's video on it - his videoblogs are excellent, if you havent caught them) suggest it has other advantages including being better able to fight off the immune system's defences, which isn't so good.
Another suggestion in The Times is that Supercovid may still respond to vaccines, but be more resistant. In other words Pfizer’s 95% may go down to 60% or whatever.
That's an irresponsible suggestion because we don't know that there is any effect on the vaccine yet. Speculation here strikes me as counterproductive.
Then tell that to the Times science writer. I am merely conveying what he says
‘It’s unlikely that the vaccines won’t work but it is possible that they won’t work quite so well‘
To me, this is the only truly crucial question about the variant. Will the vax still work? If that's a "yes" then we're just looking at more difficult last 6 months of this pandemic rather than the start of a new one.
I am refusing to think about your second alternative there. Just too awful to process this side of xmas.
In that unlikely event, it would actually be very simple to change the mRNA vaccines (the original ones were designed in days). If the situation were sufficiently bad, I think it fairly probable we'd move straight to a large scale trial and mass production of the new vaccine.
Yes, I think that's the beauty of the mRNA model, it can be adjusted very quickly and then manufacturing can be switched over. It's a huge shame that the government didn't back the Imperial vaccine and spin it out into an mRNA focused biotech. It is definitely a missed opportunity for UK pharma and we had ample justification to provide state subsidies in this scenario with a golden stake taken in the spin off.
We could still fund the tech for the future on grounds of national security / pandemic response preparedness.
Yes, I guess we could but I don't think anyone in the government really understands the sector enough. Especially now that the vaccine taskforce seems to have been disbanded. There's all this bullshit talk about AI and data science from a bunch of numpties but we have got amazing scientific research in the country we don't properly commercialise.
Funding medical research is one thing we still do quite well. What tends to be lacking is sufficient capital to get it to the next stage.
For example, the world's best selling drug for several years now (Humira)*, and an entire commercial antibody development technology (phage display) was developed by Cambridge Antibody Technology. It was licensed to a US company for a royalty in low single figures, years before it was approved (and CAT was later bought by AZN).
*The revenue stream from that would have funded several months of our deficit this year.
I was talking this morning to a chum whose son is high up in public health and sits in the Covid COBRA meetings.
Word from him was that this new mutation is bastard contagious....
That’s why the Times quote about Supercovid’s extra infectiousness leapt out at me. They didn’t cite the 0.4 lower range of R, but the higher one. 0.93. The article (and a similar one on Sky News) was clearly implying that scientists, even at this early stage, are tending to pessimism.
Brrrrr
Discussion here yesterday suggested it may just hang around in the body for longer, which wouldn't be so bad. But other sources (for example the good Dr John Campbell's video on it - his videoblogs are excellent, if you havent caught them) suggest it has other advantages including being better able to fight off the immune system's defences, which isn't so good.
Another suggestion in The Times is that Supercovid may still respond to vaccines, but be more resistant. In other words Pfizer’s 95% may go down to 60% or whatever.
That's an irresponsible suggestion because we don't know that there is any effect on the vaccine yet. Speculation here strikes me as counterproductive.
Then tell that to the Times science writer. I am merely conveying what he says
‘It’s unlikely that the vaccines won’t work but it is possible that they won’t work quite so well‘
To me, this is the only truly crucial question about the variant. Will the vax still work? If that's a "yes" then we're just looking at more difficult last 6 months of this pandemic rather than the start of a new one.
I am refusing to think about your second alternative there. Just too awful to process this side of xmas.
In that unlikely event, it would actually be very simple to change the mRNA vaccines (the original ones were designed in days). If the situation were sufficiently bad, I think it fairly probable we'd move straight to a large scale trial and mass production of the new vaccine.
Yes, I think that's the beauty of the mRNA model, it can be adjusted very quickly and then manufacturing can be switched over. It's a huge shame that the government didn't back the Imperial vaccine and spin it out into an mRNA focused biotech. It is definitely a missed opportunity for UK pharma and we had ample justification to provide state subsidies in this scenario with a golden stake taken in the spin off.
We could still fund the tech for the future on grounds of national security / pandemic response preparedness.
Yes, I guess we could but I don't think anyone in the government really understands the sector enough. Especially now that the vaccine taskforce seems to have been disbanded. There's all this bullshit talk about AI and data science from a bunch of numpties but we have got amazing scientific research in the country we don't properly commercialise.
Funding medical research is one thing we still do quite well. What tends to be lacking is sufficient capital to get it to the next stage.
For example, the world's best selling drug for several years now (Humira), and an entire commercial antibody development technology (phage display) was developed by Cambridge Antibody Technology. It was licensed to a US company for a royalty in low single figures, years before it was approved (and CAT was later bought by AZN).
Yes, this is where funding guarantees for commercialising research comes into play.
Frost has pushed our (Definitely not a pair of aces) hand to the absolute limit with regards to an EU deal. If it pays off, then I'll have to say well done. If we fail to reach a deal then it'll be all for naught.
Fingers crossed.
Bad take, Pulp. The Deal is certain and it will be pretty much as could have been agreed ages ago. The "pay off" for the "to the wire" theatrics and the No Deal hyping will not be the Deal itself, it will be that many people's response will be what you indicate yours will be. A great big "phew" and "well done Boris". That is the game here.
I was talking this morning to a chum whose son is high up in public health and sits in the Covid COBRA meetings.
Word from him was that this new mutation is bastard contagious....
That’s why the Times quote about Supercovid’s extra infectiousness leapt out at me. They didn’t cite the 0.4 lower range of R, but the higher one. 0.93. The article (and a similar one on Sky News) was clearly implying that scientists, even at this early stage, are tending to pessimism.
Brrrrr
Discussion here yesterday suggested it may just hang around in the body for longer, which wouldn't be so bad. But other sources (for example the good Dr John Campbell's video on it - his videoblogs are excellent, if you havent caught them) suggest it has other advantages including being better able to fight off the immune system's defences, which isn't so good.
Another suggestion in The Times is that Supercovid may still respond to vaccines, but be more resistant. In other words Pfizer’s 95% may go down to 60% or whatever.
That's an irresponsible suggestion because we don't know that there is any effect on the vaccine yet. Speculation here strikes me as counterproductive.
Then tell that to the Times science writer. I am merely conveying what he says
‘It’s unlikely that the vaccines won’t work but it is possible that they won’t work quite so well‘
To me, this is the only truly crucial question about the variant. Will the vax still work? If that's a "yes" then we're just looking at more difficult last 6 months of this pandemic rather than the start of a new one.
I am refusing to think about your second alternative there. Just too awful to process this side of xmas.
In that unlikely event, it would actually be very simple to change the mRNA vaccines (the original ones were designed in days). If the situation were sufficiently bad, I think it fairly probable we'd move straight to a large scale trial and mass production of the new vaccine.
Yes, I think that's the beauty of the mRNA model, it can be adjusted very quickly and then manufacturing can be switched over. It's a huge shame that the government didn't back the Imperial vaccine and spin it out into an mRNA focused biotech. It is definitely a missed opportunity for UK pharma and we had ample justification to provide state subsidies in this scenario with a golden stake taken in the spin off.
We could still fund the tech for the future on grounds of national security / pandemic response preparedness.
Yes, I guess we could but I don't think anyone in the government really understands the sector enough. Especially now that the vaccine taskforce seems to have been disbanded. There's all this bullshit talk about AI and data science from a bunch of numpties but we have got amazing scientific research in the country we don't properly commercialise.
Funding medical research is one thing we still do quite well. What tends to be lacking is sufficient capital to get it to the next stage.
For example, the world's best selling drug for several years now (Humira), and an entire commercial antibody development technology (phage display) was developed by Cambridge Antibody Technology. It was licensed to a US company for a royalty in low single figures, years before it was approved (and CAT was later bought by AZN).
I am intrigued why Imperial's vaccine candidate got so little funding from the massive pot that the government put forward. They have only received a few million quid in total so far.
I was talking this morning to a chum whose son is high up in public health and sits in the Covid COBRA meetings.
Word from him was that this new mutation is bastard contagious....
That’s why the Times quote about Supercovid’s extra infectiousness leapt out at me. They didn’t cite the 0.4 lower range of R, but the higher one. 0.93. The article (and a similar one on Sky News) was clearly implying that scientists, even at this early stage, are tending to pessimism.
Brrrrr
Discussion here yesterday suggested it may just hang around in the body for longer, which wouldn't be so bad. But other sources (for example the good Dr John Campbell's video on it - his videoblogs are excellent, if you havent caught them) suggest it has other advantages including being better able to fight off the immune system's defences, which isn't so good.
Another suggestion in The Times is that Supercovid may still respond to vaccines, but be more resistant. In other words Pfizer’s 95% may go down to 60% or whatever.
That's an irresponsible suggestion because we don't know that there is any effect on the vaccine yet. Speculation here strikes me as counterproductive.
Then tell that to the Times science writer. I am merely conveying what he says
‘It’s unlikely that the vaccines won’t work but it is possible that they won’t work quite so well‘
To me, this is the only truly crucial question about the variant. Will the vax still work? If that's a "yes" then we're just looking at more difficult last 6 months of this pandemic rather than the start of a new one.
I am refusing to think about your second alternative there. Just too awful to process this side of xmas.
In that unlikely event, it would actually be very simple to change the mRNA vaccines (the original ones were designed in days). If the situation were sufficiently bad, I think it fairly probable we'd move straight to a large scale trial and mass production of the new vaccine.
Yes, I think that's the beauty of the mRNA model, it can be adjusted very quickly and then manufacturing can be switched over. It's a huge shame that the government didn't back the Imperial vaccine and spin it out into an mRNA focused biotech. It is definitely a missed opportunity for UK pharma and we had ample justification to provide state subsidies in this scenario with a golden stake taken in the spin off.
We could still fund the tech for the future on grounds of national security / pandemic response preparedness.
Yes, I guess we could but I don't think anyone in the government really understands the sector enough. Especially now that the vaccine taskforce seems to have been disbanded. There's all this bullshit talk about AI and data science from a bunch of numpties but we have got amazing scientific research in the country we don't properly commercialise.
Funding medical research is one thing we still do quite well. What tends to be lacking is sufficient capital to get it to the next stage.
For example, the world's best selling drug for several years now (Humira), and an entire commercial antibody development technology (phage display) was developed by Cambridge Antibody Technology. It was licensed to a US company for a royalty in low single figures, years before it was approved (and CAT was later bought by AZN).
I am intrigued why Imperial's vaccine candidate got so little funding from the massive pot that the government put forward. They have only received a few million quid in total so far.
Manufacturing. It needed £300-400m in investment to get manufacturing off the ground and I'm guessing the government didn't want to take that risk on a vaccine that wasn't already approved.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Why not?
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
I don't know how many thousands a day got this years flu vaccine but around here it was a drive through operation just stick you arm out of the window.
AFAIK with the COVID jabs there's a "sit around for 15 minutes in case you keel over" post-jab element built in....
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Clem Attlee married a Tory!
I thought that in the 1945 election, the spouses of the main parties all voted for a different party than their husband
I was talking this morning to a chum whose son is high up in public health and sits in the Covid COBRA meetings.
Word from him was that this new mutation is bastard contagious....
That’s why the Times quote about Supercovid’s extra infectiousness leapt out at me. They didn’t cite the 0.4 lower range of R, but the higher one. 0.93. The article (and a similar one on Sky News) was clearly implying that scientists, even at this early stage, are tending to pessimism.
Brrrrr
Discussion here yesterday suggested it may just hang around in the body for longer, which wouldn't be so bad. But other sources (for example the good Dr John Campbell's video on it - his videoblogs are excellent, if you havent caught them) suggest it has other advantages including being better able to fight off the immune system's defences, which isn't so good.
Another suggestion in The Times is that Supercovid may still respond to vaccines, but be more resistant. In other words Pfizer’s 95% may go down to 60% or whatever.
That's an irresponsible suggestion because we don't know that there is any effect on the vaccine yet. Speculation here strikes me as counterproductive.
Then tell that to the Times science writer. I am merely conveying what he says
‘It’s unlikely that the vaccines won’t work but it is possible that they won’t work quite so well‘
To me, this is the only truly crucial question about the variant. Will the vax still work? If that's a "yes" then we're just looking at more difficult last 6 months of this pandemic rather than the start of a new one.
I am refusing to think about your second alternative there. Just too awful to process this side of xmas.
In that unlikely event, it would actually be very simple to change the mRNA vaccines (the original ones were designed in days). If the situation were sufficiently bad, I think it fairly probable we'd move straight to a large scale trial and mass production of the new vaccine.
Yes, I think that's the beauty of the mRNA model, it can be adjusted very quickly and then manufacturing can be switched over. It's a huge shame that the government didn't back the Imperial vaccine and spin it out into an mRNA focused biotech. It is definitely a missed opportunity for UK pharma and we had ample justification to provide state subsidies in this scenario with a golden stake taken in the spin off.
We could still fund the tech for the future on grounds of national security / pandemic response preparedness.
Yes, I guess we could but I don't think anyone in the government really understands the sector enough. Especially now that the vaccine taskforce seems to have been disbanded. There's all this bullshit talk about AI and data science from a bunch of numpties but we have got amazing scientific research in the country we don't properly commercialise.
Funding medical research is one thing we still do quite well. What tends to be lacking is sufficient capital to get it to the next stage.
For example, the world's best selling drug for several years now (Humira), and an entire commercial antibody development technology (phage display) was developed by Cambridge Antibody Technology. It was licensed to a US company for a royalty in low single figures, years before it was approved (and CAT was later bought by AZN).
I am intrigued why Imperial's vaccine candidate got so little funding from the massive pot that the government put forward. They have only received a few million quid in total so far.
A combination of the patent landscape, and the fact that Biontech and Moderna were much further advanced, I would guess. Don't forget Moderna had been working on mRNA therapeutics, and then vaccines, for many years. Recreating that from scratch takes some time.
Though to be fair, I don't know much about the Imperial effort.
Reviving this from the old thread as I'm interested in where the UK figure was sourced from. The article doesn't quote a UK figure for the Moderna vaccine anywhere.
The UK is paying $37 per dose of the Moderna vaccine. The EU is paying $18 per dose. Both buyers ordered 40m doses. The EU offered the UK to join its buying consortium, but the UK turned them down. This is the team negotiating Brexit terms of trade.
Hi Malcom. Where are you getting the Uk figure from?
I can't find a reliable estimate since the summer (and we hadn't ordered 40m then).
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Pfizer is the toughest vaccine to distribute and we're also doing the hardest brackets (80+ & care homes) first.
So with easier to distribute vaccines and easier age groups and more practice we should see superior rollout numbers over time. The limiting factor will be how much vaccine we actually have in the country not distribution within the country (imo).
Care homes are particularly difficult to vaccinate with the Pfizer jab because you can't take the jab to the home, you need to take the patients to the hospital. Not at all easy logistically. People who can make their own way to where they need to be vaccinated is easier.
If it wasn't for the supercooled logistics it would be easier to take the doses to the home and get it done quickly.
Are you certain about this, PT?
Your post has prompted me to call my mum`s care home and they have (again) said that nurses will be coming to the care home to administer the vaccine to all the residents in one go. They said that care home residents cannot be taken to an external venue to be vaccinated as some cannot be moved due to their condition.
Frost has pushed our (Definitely not a pair of aces) hand to the absolute limit with regards to an EU deal. If it pays off, then I'll have to say well done. If we fail to reach a deal then it'll be all for naught.
Fingers crossed.
Bad take, Pulp. The Deal is certain and it will be pretty much as could have been agreed ages ago. The "pay off" for the "to the wire" theatrics and the No Deal hyping will not be the Deal itself, it will be that many people's response will be what you indicate yours will be. A great big "phew" and "well done Boris". That is the game here.
Several things can be true at once.
1. There will be a deal, because the Johnson and Gove haven't really prepared for No Deal. 2. The big picture of that deal will be one outlined by Barnier back in... 2017? No tarrifs/no quotas/lots of paperwork/some fish/more alignment than Canada. 3. Frostie has probably done as well as can be done. Some of the wins are the striking out of the obviously outrageous things in the initial EU plan. (Everyone who does serious negotiation starts out absurd, don't they? It's part of the game, which is why I try to avoid it.) But there does seem to have been a genuine move, even if the UK has moved more. That's OK. 4. Looking at the gains (real control of immigration, the ability to do trade deals with remote nations, sense of national vim, however much it actually is a week) and losses (border faff hurting trade, a loss of input into EU deliberations), the gains look small but visible, the losses look less visible but potentially larger. That came from BoJo's choice; we can only see what happens. 5. It's quite possible that the cost of all this faffing around over the last six months (because everyone knows that the first few months of our Brave New Future will be a mess, because nobody has been able to plan) will exceed the value of the gains by comparing what we settle for now with what we could have settled for in the summer. 6. The gap between the actual deal done and what some in the media and ERG have been expecting will be interesting to watch over the years to come.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
The problem is people have been saying similar things ever since the time of the French Revolution.
And always they have ultimately been disappointed.
Worse, very often it was their own governments that disappointed them. The Soviet and Chinese governments stand as examples of governments who came to power promising similar things to those on your list - but ultimately ended up achieving more or less the opposite.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Sure, they are priorities, and the left have some of the answers, as does the right. But if the left dont learn to count, the only solutions that will be tried here will be those of the right. UK politics is not an even battle of ideas, it is uphill and difficult for the left to win, especially to win and hold on to significant power. It is no surprise only Blair has done this for them.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Why not?
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
For the the flu jab - which is the easiest of jabs to administer and is done every year - the minimum time allotted for each patient at the surgery is 2 minutes. And this is if they are healthy and have no recorded medical issues. This is because the patient has to come in, run through a checklist to ensure they are safe to receive the jab and then get out again before the next person comes in so they don't mix with them.
500 jabs a day at 2 minutes a jab is 16 hours and 40 minutes. Without a break.
And that is for patients who are healthy. If they are not healthy then it takes longer as they have to be observed after the jab.
For the Covid jabs the instructions are that all patients are supposed to be observed for 15 minutes after injection, during which time they have to remain isolated from other patients. And prior to the injection the questionnaire on medical history and current health is much longer. You also have to have somewhere for all these people to sit or stand during this time whilst maintaining social distancing.
The idea that a single surgery can do 500 Covid jabs a day - even before you take into account all the non covid patients - is for the fairies. They have neither the staff nor the room.
Comments
Chesterfield reckons they will have 25% of people eligible done by Easter at best
Macron can go into his election as the man who stood firm to Les Rosbifs
Boris can portray he stands up for Britain and wave the flag while pointing any blame as being unreasonableness of the French.
But I can't see UVDL wanting to play that game.
Far too subtle for me!!
Do you think that the forthcoming lettuce shortage is just the tip of the iceberg?
https://twitter.com/Brocklesnitch/status/1338328047208988674?s=19
* In its self-interest, of course.
Uğur Şahin, the CEO of BioNTech, the German biotechnology company behind the first Covid 19 vaccine, was asked at a press briefing when he believed the world might be able to return to normal, following the roll out of vaccine programmes.
Şahin said:
We need a new definition of ‘normal’. The virus will stay with us for the next 10 years. We need to get used to the fact there’ll be more outbreaks.
However, a ‘new normal’ would mean not having to go into lockdown, businesses not having to close, and hospitalisations not being as commonplace. “That can happen by the end of the summer,” he said.
He said the vaccine would not change lives quickly. He said:
This winter we will not have an impact on the infection numbers. But we must have an impact so that next winter can be the new normal.
The company said it was “scouting every location” to expand its production of the vaccine as much as possible, to boost what it called the “scarcity of the vaccine”.
It said its capacity by the end of 2021 was for 1.3 billion doses.
The right message- the one you can imagine a great leader giving- was one about how it will be tough, probably for a few years. That there would be a cost, in lives, disruption and wealth. But that, together, we would beat this wretched virus, and that would be our finest hour. The sort of thing the Queen did in her "we'll meet again" speech.
But, as a nation, we decided to put a superficially amiable rogue in power. Someone who has a lifetime of telling people what they want to hear, not necessarily what they need. And that's on us.
Fingers crossed.
"There is" ... clang clang ... "a house" ... clang clang ... "in nooo orleans".
Grim.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1341332432344244224
It could be a huge boost to the world to have a single dose vaccine that doesn't need super cold storage.
There are many things that have not gone right this year but when it comes to vaccine procurement I wouldn't swap the UK's position with another country in Europe right now.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/12/f1-2020-season-review.html
Perhaps it will be, but those who backed Romaine will need to adjust.
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1341346255323205634?s=20
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
Leaving aside that I don't share Frost's defensive concerns, my observations:
And I’d point out that Attlee’s decision to serve with the Tories was one factor in convincing huge numbers of previously sceptical voters that Labour weren’t unhinged lunatics who would trash the place, but serious political figures. Heck, it even made Thatcher into an admirer.
(It didn’t last beyond Bevan and Shinwell getting into office, but that’s another story.)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sinovac-brazil-chi/chinas-sinovac-covid-19-vaccine-proves-effective-in-brazil-trials-wsj-idUSKBN28V2S6
No details, but it's at least above the 50% effectiveness threshold.
Albeit I was only 18 at the time so blame the innocence of youth, I also regretted it afterwards for what Brown became. Not for Blair, for Brown though.
Voted against him once too, because of Brown not Blair.
I can't remember any of the details, but I've got a recollection of a sci-fi dystopia where the science of advertising had got so good that people literally had to buy the products they saw advertised. We're not anywhere near there yet, but it's a risk to be aware of.
My only hope for SKS is that he is a Neil Kinnock figure i.e. gets rid of the idiots and steers them back to a place of viability in England. They're all over in Scotland, but they haven't faced up to that yet.
So with easier to distribute vaccines and easier age groups and more practice we should see superior rollout numbers over time. The limiting factor will be how much vaccine we actually have in the country not distribution within the country (imo).
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1341348138272104453?s=20
Corbyn was rubbish and got burned.
If it wasn't for the supercooled logistics it would be easier to take the doses to the home and get it done quickly.
The likes of Bastani, Sarkar, Burgon, Pidcock will never compromise because they don’t understand perfection is the real enemy of improvement.
https://twitter.com/remkorteweg/status/1341350305032777729?s=20
Lateral flow tests undertaken by military on HGV drivers agreed with France
What tends to be lacking is sufficient capital to get it to the next stage.
For example, the world's best selling drug for several years now (Humira)*, and an entire commercial antibody development technology (phage display) was developed by Cambridge Antibody Technology.
It was licensed to a US company for a royalty in low single figures, years before it was approved (and CAT was later bought by AZN).
*The revenue stream from that would have funded several months of our deficit this year.
Let's hope it extends to a similar level of pragmatism prevailing in the Brexit talks.
Virtually identical:
Johnson: Well/Badly: 37/56
Macron Approve/Disapprove: 38/60
But haven't seen concerns about performance for SD Biosensor and Abbott?
Don't forget Moderna had been working on mRNA therapeutics, and then vaccines, for many years. Recreating that from scratch takes some time.
Though to be fair, I don't know much about the Imperial effort.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change.
The emancipation of women.
Racial equality.
Sustainable growth.
Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Your post has prompted me to call my mum`s care home and they have (again) said that nurses will be coming to the care home to administer the vaccine to all the residents in one go. They said that care home residents cannot be taken to an external venue to be vaccinated as some cannot be moved due to their condition.
1. There will be a deal, because the Johnson and Gove haven't really prepared for No Deal.
2. The big picture of that deal will be one outlined by Barnier back in... 2017? No tarrifs/no quotas/lots of paperwork/some fish/more alignment than Canada.
3. Frostie has probably done as well as can be done. Some of the wins are the striking out of the obviously outrageous things in the initial EU plan. (Everyone who does serious negotiation starts out absurd, don't they? It's part of the game, which is why I try to avoid it.) But there does seem to have been a genuine move, even if the UK has moved more. That's OK.
4. Looking at the gains (real control of immigration, the ability to do trade deals with remote nations, sense of national vim, however much it actually is a week) and losses (border faff hurting trade, a loss of input into EU deliberations), the gains look small but visible, the losses look less visible but potentially larger. That came from BoJo's choice; we can only see what happens.
5. It's quite possible that the cost of all this faffing around over the last six months (because everyone knows that the first few months of our Brave New Future will be a mess, because nobody has been able to plan) will exceed the value of the gains by comparing what we settle for now with what we could have settled for in the summer.
6. The gap between the actual deal done and what some in the media and ERG have been expecting will be interesting to watch over the years to come.
And always they have ultimately been disappointed.
Worse, very often it was their own governments that disappointed them. The Soviet and Chinese governments stand as examples of governments who came to power promising similar things to those on your list - but ultimately ended up achieving more or less the opposite.
500 jabs a day at 2 minutes a jab is 16 hours and 40 minutes. Without a break.
And that is for patients who are healthy. If they are not healthy then it takes longer as they have to be observed after the jab.
For the Covid jabs the instructions are that all patients are supposed to be observed for 15 minutes after injection, during which time they have to remain isolated from other patients. And prior to the injection the questionnaire on medical history and current health is much longer. You also have to have somewhere for all these people to sit or stand during this time whilst maintaining social distancing.
The idea that a single surgery can do 500 Covid jabs a day - even before you take into account all the non covid patients - is for the fairies. They have neither the staff nor the room.