Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Longstanding PBer, DavidL, gives his forecasts for the new year – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    kle4 said:

    Kneel down mere mortals before this evidence of a genetic powerhouse. You royalists will be well accustomed to assuming the position.

    https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1343279444547538945?s=21

    OK, that is pretty cringy even from the Telegraph, even if I'd hope it was tongue in cheek to upset 'the right people'.

    And as a royalist, I don't kneel before the genetic line we have, they merely happen to be the ones in place. Essentially any monarch will do under the system, the country essentially said as much 300 years ago when it set a bunch of succession rules.
    Isn’t owning the libs a bit passe?

    Slight shocked that you'd accept, say, Andrew as your monarch on a point of principle.
    I think Andrew would be forced to abdicate if there was any risk of him becoming Monarch.

    The point of the Act of Succession is that it is ultimately Parliament that chooses the Monarch, not the accident of birth alone.
    Also, hypothetical Andrew is more than countered by actual jfk, Clinton and Trump in the monarch vs president debate.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Railway austerity on the cards

    Is that like motorcycle emptiness?
  • Options

    This is an excellent piece by John Harris, easily the Guardian's best writer.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/27/history-britain-ruling-class-created-crisis-boris-johnson-brexit-covid

    "If history teaches us anything, it is that this country’s mixture of cap-doffing and unassailable privilege tends to keep even the most rotten hierarchies in place, and the saga grinds on. This is the essence of the very British mess that we seem unable to escape."

    I would only add, of course, that Scotland may well be able to escape.

    tbh I thought it was claptrap and I'm generally critical of old school tie government.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    edited December 2020
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    This is an excellent piece by John Harris, easily the Guardian's best writer.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/27/history-britain-ruling-class-created-crisis-boris-johnson-brexit-covid

    "If history teaches us anything, it is that this country’s mixture of cap-doffing and unassailable privilege tends to keep even the most rotten hierarchies in place, and the saga grinds on. This is the essence of the very British mess that we seem unable to escape."

    I would only add, of course, that Scotland may well be able to escape.

    I get very wary of any analysis that hinges upon a vision of the country as implacably locked in some cap doffing culture and the like. Like a lot of things where the answer is class issues, it seems like people are acting the hammer looking for a nail.
    Sometimes it is a nail though.
    And sometimes there really is a wolf. Sure, I should deal with that nail and that wolf if they are indeed there, but I don't think it unreasonable for there to be a degree of confusion when people are always going on about nails and wolves, even when they are not there.

    Sometimes it is a nail. But it often isn't, but people insist on it regardless.

    On our political culture, I don't know, people talk about class too much in this country for it to be meaningless, but it feels too simplistic to me.
    "It's not for the likes of us"

    It's an interesting question as to why. I've seen it close up -

    One of my daughters went to a state primary school - other one to the local free school.

    One of those up-with-private-schools places. People prosecuted for lying about their location to get into the catchment area etc

    It pretty much shares it catchment area with a failing, no-hoper of a primary. Always being reformed/rebuilt/recreated.

    As in much of London (and the UK) the poor and the well off live cheek-by-jowl. The super successful primary has council houses literally next to it. The intake is nearly all middle class or above. Some of the people from the poor estates chose to send their children there. Their comments over a beer, on how their neighbours tried to dissuade them from sending their children there are interesting.

    - "It's not a school for us."
    - "They're pushy about homework and reading."
    - "They won't like you or your kids."

    I heard much the same from parent at the free school where my other daughter went.

    So everyone from the estates goes to the shockingly bad school..

    Most of the middle class parent involved were shocked at the idea they would be anything other than happy to have kids from the estates at the school.

    In fact I had to persuade them to make an extra effort - for example, that they needed to explain about the clothing/toy freecyle thing. For those who don't have kids, you end up with box after box of clothes and toys they rapidly grow out of. In the age of Primark this stuff is basically worthless, so parents simply pass it on. While it is worthless second hand, the price of buying it all new adds up. Even from Primark.

    So you get stuff given to you by people with older kids and it is an unwritten rule that in turn you pass your stuff down the age ladder.

    Some of the mums and dads from the less well off backgrounds were a bit suspicious - wondered if they were being treated as charity cases. Once they saw the joy with which a box of clothes went in the back of the Porsche 4x4...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Kneel down mere mortals before this evidence of a genetic powerhouse. You royalists will be well accustomed to assuming the position.

    https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1343279444547538945?s=21

    OK, that is pretty cringy even from the Telegraph, even if I'd hope it was tongue in cheek to upset 'the right people'.

    And as a royalist, I don't kneel before the genetic line we have, they merely happen to be the ones in place. Essentially any monarch will do under the system, the country essentially said as much 300 years ago when it set a bunch of succession rules.
    Isn’t owning the libs a bit passe?

    Slight shocked that you'd accept, say, Andrew as your monarch on a point of principle.
    I think Andrew would be forced to abdicate if there was any risk of him becoming Monarch.

    The point of the Act of Succession is that it is ultimately Parliament that chooses the Monarch, not the accident of birth alone.
    Also, hypothetical Andrew is more than countered by actual jfk, Clinton and Trump in the monarch vs president debate.
    Quite - like a lot of people I know, I am an anti-anti-monarchist.

    It's not that we like the Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but the thought of President FailedPolitician is even worse. And the certain knowledge that within 5 years, the cost of the Presidency would exceed that of the Monarchy. probably by an order of magnitude

    So we would end up with worse people at the top, costing more money.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,015
    Thin story to say the least. More upping of tiers on Wednesday.
    Falls into the No Shit Sherlock category.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Kneel down mere mortals before this evidence of a genetic powerhouse. You royalists will be well accustomed to assuming the position.

    https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1343279444547538945?s=21

    OK, that is pretty cringy even from the Telegraph, even if I'd hope it was tongue in cheek to upset 'the right people'.

    And as a royalist, I don't kneel before the genetic line we have, they merely happen to be the ones in place. Essentially any monarch will do under the system, the country essentially said as much 300 years ago when it set a bunch of succession rules.
    Isn’t owning the libs a bit passe?

    Slight shocked that you'd accept, say, Andrew as your monarch on a point of principle.
    I think Andrew would be forced to abdicate if there was any risk of him becoming Monarch.

    The point of the Act of Succession is that it is ultimately Parliament that chooses the Monarch, not the accident of birth alone.
    Also, hypothetical Andrew is more than countered by actual jfk, Clinton and Trump in the monarch vs president debate.
    Quite - like a lot of people I know, I am an anti-anti-monarchist.

    It's not that we like the Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but the thought of President FailedPolitician is even worse. And the certain knowledge that within 5 years, the cost of the Presidency would exceed that of the Monarchy. probably by an order of magnitude

    So we would end up with worse people at the top, costing more money.
    My position to a T.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,424

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Kneel down mere mortals before this evidence of a genetic powerhouse. You royalists will be well accustomed to assuming the position.

    https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1343279444547538945?s=21

    OK, that is pretty cringy even from the Telegraph, even if I'd hope it was tongue in cheek to upset 'the right people'.

    And as a royalist, I don't kneel before the genetic line we have, they merely happen to be the ones in place. Essentially any monarch will do under the system, the country essentially said as much 300 years ago when it set a bunch of succession rules.
    Isn’t owning the libs a bit passe?

    Slight shocked that you'd accept, say, Andrew as your monarch on a point of principle.
    I think Andrew would be forced to abdicate if there was any risk of him becoming Monarch.

    The point of the Act of Succession is that it is ultimately Parliament that chooses the Monarch, not the accident of birth alone.
    Also, hypothetical Andrew is more than countered by actual jfk, Clinton and Trump in the monarch vs president debate.
    Quite - like a lot of people I know, I am an anti-anti-monarchist.

    It's not that we like the Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but the thought of President FailedPolitician is even worse. And the certain knowledge that within 5 years, the cost of the Presidency would exceed that of the Monarchy. probably by an order of magnitude

    So we would end up with worse people at the top, costing more money.
    If people really want to vote for failed politicians as President I would let them.

    And, also, if our democracy cannot control the cost of a Presidency then we have no chance of preventing corruption of the public purse more generally - i.e. we have bigger problems.

    I think accepting a Monarchy as the best we can manage betrays a debilitating lack of self-respect and belief.

    And I like to remind people that we're part of the way there already, given that we exercise a veto on the identity of the Monarch.
  • Options
    That gave me quite a fillip until i noticed 'via Daily Express'.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    The idea is a continual scaling up, to 3-4 million per week.

    It worth noting that there are 3.2 million over 80s, who make up 54% of the deaths from COVID. Something like 17% of them have had their first job.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,392

    Predicting that there will be another indyref, based on Boris's cowardy-custardness - or to put it more neutrally, his fondness for ease, is hard to argue with. But I wonder on what basis you think he'll propose to have one in 2022. I suspect for a number of reasons he'd want to push the date back, and he'd have a very good case for doing so (whether or not a delay is desirable).

    Woops, didn't know this was up until I got a text message from a friend. Last time around we had years of paralysis and chaos in a never ending referendum campaign. This time around it has to be sharper.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,015
    RobD said:
    Well...it is the Daily Express.
    However. Here we are again.
    Overpromising.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,314
    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,392

    Surely the idea Remain will win an Indy Ref with Johnson as PM is quite unlikely, am I wrong?

    Yes.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,674
    edited December 2020

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Kneel down mere mortals before this evidence of a genetic powerhouse. You royalists will be well accustomed to assuming the position.

    https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1343279444547538945?s=21

    OK, that is pretty cringy even from the Telegraph, even if I'd hope it was tongue in cheek to upset 'the right people'.

    And as a royalist, I don't kneel before the genetic line we have, they merely happen to be the ones in place. Essentially any monarch will do under the system, the country essentially said as much 300 years ago when it set a bunch of succession rules.
    Isn’t owning the libs a bit passe?

    Slight shocked that you'd accept, say, Andrew as your monarch on a point of principle.
    I think Andrew would be forced to abdicate if there was any risk of him becoming Monarch.

    The point of the Act of Succession is that it is ultimately Parliament that chooses the Monarch, not the accident of birth alone.
    Also, hypothetical Andrew is more than countered by actual jfk, Clinton and Trump in the monarch vs president debate.
    Quite - like a lot of people I know, I am an anti-anti-monarchist.

    It's not that we like the Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but the thought of President FailedPolitician is even worse. And the certain knowledge that within 5 years, the cost of the Presidency would exceed that of the Monarchy. probably by an order of magnitude

    So we would end up with worse people at the top, costing more money.
    Although a republican, it is not something I feel too strongly about and you put a good argument for the status quo.
  • Options

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    No chance Feb. Maybe Easter if a. the Oxford is approved now and b. the vaccination programme is appropriately resourced and prioritised.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,826
    DavidL said:

    Surely the idea Remain will win an Indy Ref with Johnson as PM is quite unlikely, am I wrong?

    Yes.
    It is possible, albeit unlikely. Refusing a further referendum guarantees independence when the next
  • Options
    RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,978
    DavidL said:

    Surely the idea Remain will win an Indy Ref with Johnson as PM is quite unlikely, am I wrong?

    Yes.
    I guess ultimately it comes down to practilities. Latest polling in Scotland has economy as number 1..
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,048
    RobD said:
    One of the classic "The word 'could' is doing a lot of work in that sentence" lines.

    I suppose the death rate might be down to the point that it 'looks' like restrictions could be eased, but with nowhere near enough vaccinated it would seem way to early to open up completely.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,424

    The idea is a continual scaling up, to 3-4 million per week.

    It worth noting that there are 3.2 million over 80s, who make up 54% of the deaths from COVID. Something like 17% of them have had their first job.
    The newspapers keep on using the 1 million a week figure as though it's impressively high, but it really isn't. Hopefully it's the newspapers being crap.

    The limiting factor isn't deaths, as such, but hospitalizations. There are too many people in their 40s and 50s who need hospital treatment to open things up before they've been vaccinated. Our current age-profile of death rates is dependent on everyone being able to receive hospital care if they need it.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,826

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,048
    dixiedean said:

    Thin story to say the least. More upping of tiers on Wednesday.
    Falls into the No Shit Sherlock category.
    Reporting things happening still technically counts as news even when it is unsurprising of course, though the problem with the media is they simply cannot help frame things in such a way as to appear surprising even when they are not. Places are 'plunged' into a situation, 'hit' with new measures, that kind of thing. I don't think it entirely intentional even when something is done entirely according to plan, which obviously will not always be the case.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    Surely the idea Remain will win an Indy Ref with Johnson as PM is quite unlikely, am I wrong?

    Yes.
    I guess ultimately it comes down to practilities. Latest polling in Scotland has economy as number 1..
    Any focus groups of 2014 No voters that can be asked about the practilities?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,068
    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    To be fair, she's a despicable human being who - even more than Jeremy Corbyn - celebrated the murder of British civilians by terrorists.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:
    One of the classic "The word 'could' is doing a lot of work in that sentence" lines.

    I suppose the death rate might be down to the point that it 'looks' like restrictions could be eased, but with nowhere near enough vaccinated it would seem way to early to open up completely.
    If the over 80s are done by then - which seems possible - then the death rate would be halved, pretty much.

  • Options

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    No chance Feb. Maybe Easter if a. the Oxford is approved now and b. the vaccination programme is appropriately resourced and prioritised.
    Express stories are best treated with incredulity

    My best guess is not before June and for Europe as a whole much later

    And that is not anti Europe just I cannot see them vaccinating the numbers by then
  • Options

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    No chance Feb. Maybe Easter if a. the Oxford is approved now and b. the vaccination programme is appropriately resourced and prioritised.
    Express stories are best treated with incredulity

    My best guess is not before June and for Europe as a whole much later

    And that is not anti Europe just I cannot see them vaccinating the numbers by then
    Reasonable analysis as ever Big G
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,015
    edited December 2020
    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Thin story to say the least. More upping of tiers on Wednesday.
    Falls into the No Shit Sherlock category.
    Reporting things happening still technically counts as news even when it is unsurprising of course, though the problem with the media is they simply cannot help frame things in such a way as to appear surprising even when they are not. Places are 'plunged' into a situation, 'hit' with new measures, that kind of thing. I don't think it entirely intentional even when something is done entirely according to plan, which obviously will not always be the case.
    "Poised" always gets me.
    As if a tiger about to pounce.
    Rather than put somewhere in Tier 4, announce a new policy on the bins, or sign a clapped out right back on a free transfer.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    People will head out once they've had the vaccine. Can see flights full of 80+ off to Barbados in Feb...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    edited December 2020

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    I think I mentioned my encounter with an eco-lawyer - he regarded the fast tracking of offshore wind farms as positively evil. Not because of short cuts - but between the industry and the government, they have all the data on shipwrecks, fishing, birds, radar coverage organised, so the the list of questions just gets answered then and there. Not quite overlaying maps of the various no-go areas and building in the bits left over, but close.

    He believed that if billions are to be spent it was a moral duty that the planning process *should* take time.

    Edit - to add, it sounds like Cardiff would also stir up the "let the sea reclaim it" types.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    To be fair, she's a despicable human being who - even more than Jeremy Corbyn - celebrated the murder of British civilians by terrorists.
    I forget, do we still have to believe that she was raised to the HoL by some nameless deity or did BJ finally take responsibility for something in his sorry ass existence?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,068
    RobD said:
    I thought I was pretty bullish, but February is ridiculous.

    That being said... I would hope that tier four will be a thing of the past by the end of February. And tier three by end March.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    I think I mentioned my encounter with an eco-lawyer - he regarded the fast tracking of offshore wind farms as positively evil. Not because of short cuts - but between the industry and the government, they have all the data on shipwrecks, fishing, birds, radar coverage organised, so the the list of questions just gets answered then and there. Not quite overlaying maps of the various no-go areas and building in the bits left over, but close.

    He believed that if billions are to be spent it was a moral duty that the planning process *should* take time.

    Edit - to add, it sounds like Cardiff would also stir up the "let the sea reclaim it" types.
    I'm saying that there is no particular difference in the planning process for the size of lagoons, for 16 or 160 turbines. Bridgewater would be a more challengingproject, because there are a bunch of complex overlapping issues there that might cause a lengthier process. But 5 years should get you planning approvals from start to finish. It's mostly building sea walls.

    Bear in mind, if you go talk to the councillors in Maryport, they are not going to be putting blocks in the way of a £20 billion local spend, for zero carbon zero waste that gives their area huge regeneration project. The people blocking them would the nuclear indusrty. Build one tidal lagoon and the economics of new nuclear will patently make no sense whatsoever.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,540
    edited December 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    People will head out once they've had the vaccine. Can see flights full of 80+ off to Barbados in Feb...
    If Barbados will have them

    There will have to be Covid vaccine certificates, the same way we have vaccine visas for Yellow Fever, etc,

    It's a massive dilemma for any sunny little country dependant on tourism. The Maldives, the Seychelles, Mauritius, The Caribbean as a whole will be utterly destitute and desperate for US/European tourists by late Feb, but they will be risking their own public health if they allow it,

    There will be vaccine passports.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    People will head out once they've had the vaccine. Can see flights full of 80+ off to Barbados in Feb...
    My aged aunt was joking about taking over the dance floors at the abandoned night clubs, for over-80s only raves.

    "Drugs are *mandatory* in this house....."
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,997
    edited December 2020
    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    Isn't it the case that once elderly and vulnerable people have been vaccinated the number of deaths from Covid-19 will be extremely low since they're heavily concentrated in those groups? So it won't be necessary to vaccinate 100% of the population to get life back to normal.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,068
    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,540
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:
    I thought I was pretty bullish, but February is ridiculous.

    That being said... I would hope that tier four will be a thing of the past by the end of February. And tier three by end March.
    It all depends on Astra-Zeneca, methinks. If this works well, then Yes. Britain could be through the worst by the end of Feb (not clear, that's insane, but palpably in a better place)

    There isn't enough Pfizer to go round to do this, and Moderna is also problematic
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,048
    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    Isn't it the case that once elderly and vulnerable people have been vaccinated the number of deaths from Covid-19 will be extremely low since they're heavily concentrated in those groups? So it won't be necessary to vaccinate 100% of the population to get life back to normal.
    Plenty of people will still get sick and/or die who are not in the most vulnerable group. A couple of months extra won't mean everyone is covered, but would surely be better than just throwing it open the instant the most vulnerable are covered.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,540
    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Mrs Roosevelt
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,880
    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Eleanor Roosevelt
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Eleanor Roosevelt
  • Options
    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    Isn't it the case that once elderly and vulnerable people have been vaccinated the number of deaths from Covid-19 will be extremely low since they're heavily concentrated in those groups? So it won't be necessary to vaccinate 100% of the population to get life back to normal.
    Hospital capacity will be the limiting factor, and unfortunately those in hospital are not nearly as old as those who die. Letting it rip after vaccinating all the, say, over 65s would certainly lead to hospital collapse as the virus would tear through the rest leaving too many middle-aged (and young, even) seriously ill. Even over 60s. I'm not sure about over 50s, even that might be not enough.

    And that doesn't count the cost of long COVID in the younger. For getting back to normal I imagine we'd need to vaccinate half the population at least.

    --AS
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    I think I mentioned my encounter with an eco-lawyer - he regarded the fast tracking of offshore wind farms as positively evil. Not because of short cuts - but between the industry and the government, they have all the data on shipwrecks, fishing, birds, radar coverage organised, so the the list of questions just gets answered then and there. Not quite overlaying maps of the various no-go areas and building in the bits left over, but close.

    He believed that if billions are to be spent it was a moral duty that the planning process *should* take time.

    Edit - to add, it sounds like Cardiff would also stir up the "let the sea reclaim it" types.
    I'm saying that there is no particular difference in the planning process for the size of lagoons, for 16 or 160 turbines. Bridgewater would be a more challengingproject, because there are a bunch of complex overlapping issues there that might cause a lengthier process. But 5 years should get you planning approvals from start to finish. It's mostly building sea walls.

    Bear in mind, if you go talk to the councillors in Maryport, they are not going to be putting blocks in the way of a £20 billion local spend, for zero carbon zero waste that gives their area huge regeneration project. The people blocking them would the nuclear indusrty. Build one tidal lagoon and the economics of new nuclear will patently make no sense whatsoever.
    Is there any detailed paperwork on the proposals available - how are they proposing to get round the silting issue? Tidal scour? How much power does that sacrifice? etc etc
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Melania’s turned I hear.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Eleanor Roosevelt

    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Eleanor Roosevelt
    That appears to have been not the most difficult quiz question ever asked on PB.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,895
    Pulpstar said:


    People will head out once they've had the vaccine. Can see flights full of 80+ off to Barbados in Feb...

    I know people want to see the back of the virus - I get that - but some of the hyperbole being spouted is delusional.

    On a day when it's clear the emergency services in London and the South-East are struggling to cope with the demand all we get is nonsense about how it will all be over by February. It is of course not just the very old who get seriously ill with the virus though they do disproportionately die from it.

    It now seems the Mail and the Express have finally thrown aside whatever tatters of objectivity they once possessed and have become full-throated cheerleaders for Boris Johnson and the Government.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    Isn't it the case that once elderly and vulnerable people have been vaccinated the number of deaths from Covid-19 will be extremely low since they're heavily concentrated in those groups? So it won't be necessary to vaccinate 100% of the population to get life back to normal.
    Plenty of people will still get sick and/or die who are not in the most vulnerable group. A couple of months extra won't mean everyone is covered, but would surely be better than just throwing it open the instant the most vulnerable are covered.
    We can get most 65+ and vulnerable people vaccinated by end Feb, that takes away most of the death exposure

    We also need to vaccinate 50 to 65 by end March as that will largely eliminate hospitalisations

    So we can't really relax significantly before end March - the impact of vaccinating 65+ by end Feb will take a further month to fully flow through on deaths.

    Also this is why a good idea to keep schools closed until Feb to protect 50+ during this period.

  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Eleanor Roosevelt

    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Eleanor Roosevelt
    That appears to have been not the most difficult quiz question ever asked on PB.
    Agreed.

    Presumably rcs has only just discovered it :)
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144
    Interestingly, people are able to buy the Pfizer vaccine in Mexico....
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,826

    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    Isn't it the case that once elderly and vulnerable people have been vaccinated the number of deaths from Covid-19 will be extremely low since they're heavily concentrated in those groups? So it won't be necessary to vaccinate 100% of the population to get life back to normal.
    Hospital capacity will be the limiting factor, and unfortunately those in hospital are not nearly as old as those who die. Letting it rip after vaccinating all the, say, over 65s would certainly lead to hospital collapse as the virus would tear through the rest leaving too many middle-aged (and young, even) seriously ill. Even over 60s. I'm not sure about over 50s, even that might be not enough.

    And that doesn't count the cost of long COVID in the younger. For getting back to normal I imagine we'd need to vaccinate half the population at least.

    --AS
    Yes, and we do not yet know how effective any of the vaccines is at stopping asymptomatic spread.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited December 2020

    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Melania’s turned I hear.
    I don't normally buy politicians' biographies -- or the biographies of their spouses.

    But, I'd be willing to pay a bit of money to buy a reasonably honest account by Melania of the story of her married life.
  • Options
    The SNP voting for No Deal is really something Labour should be making hay out of
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,724

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    I think I mentioned my encounter with an eco-lawyer - he regarded the fast tracking of offshore wind farms as positively evil. Not because of short cuts - but between the industry and the government, they have all the data on shipwrecks, fishing, birds, radar coverage organised, so the the list of questions just gets answered then and there. Not quite overlaying maps of the various no-go areas and building in the bits left over, but close.

    He believed that if billions are to be spent it was a moral duty that the planning process *should* take time.

    Edit - to add, it sounds like Cardiff would also stir up the "let the sea reclaim it" types.
    One could almost say that he was furious that not enough was going to stick to him and his colleagues. :smile:

  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,880

    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Melania’s turned I hear.
    I don't normally buy politicians' biographies -- or the biographies of their spouses.

    But, I'd be willing to pay a bit of money to buy a reasonably honest account by Melania of the story of her married life.
    My friend, who has very well connected connections, told me that Melanie had forced Trump to agree a “post-nup” when he had Covid.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,825

    The idea is a continual scaling up, to 3-4 million per week.

    It worth noting that there are 3.2 million over 80s, who make up 54% of the deaths from COVID. Something like 17% of them have had their first job.
    The newspapers keep on using the 1 million a week figure as though it's impressively high, but it really isn't. Hopefully it's the newspapers being crap.

    The limiting factor isn't deaths, as such, but hospitalizations. There are too many people in their 40s and 50s who need hospital treatment to open things up before they've been vaccinated. Our current age-profile of death rates is dependent on everyone being able to receive hospital care if they need it.
    How many weeks does it take to deliver the 14m annual flu jabs?

    I'd have thought the vast majority are delivered in about 6-8 weeks at over 2m per week at peak, but I'm guessing a bit - anyone know the true rate?
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,880

    rcs1000 said:

    Quiz question:

    Who was the first (and as far as we know, only) lesbian First Lady of the United States?

    Melania’s turned I hear.
    I don't normally buy politicians' biographies -- or the biographies of their spouses.

    But, I'd be willing to pay a bit of money to buy a reasonably honest account by Melania of the story of her married life.
    If you have several hours free, Ken Burns’s documentary on the Roosevelts is really well worth watching.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    edited December 2020
    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    Isn't it the case that once elderly and vulnerable people have been vaccinated the number of deaths from Covid-19 will be extremely low since they're heavily concentrated in those groups? So it won't be necessary to vaccinate 100% of the population to get life back to normal.

    Age, COVID-19 Deaths, Number
    85 years and over, 30,287, 1.6 million
    75 to 84 years,23,809, 3.8 million
    65 to 74 years,10,986, 6.4 million
    45 to 64 years, 6,706, 16.8 million
    15 to 44 years, 750, 25.3 million
    1 to 14 years, 6, 10.9 million
    Under 1 year, 2, 0.8 million
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,825
    edited December 2020
    If the Oxford vaccine is approved before Thursday we will have a good example of when 'a week is a long time in politics'.

    Johnson will end the year in a much stronger position than seemed likely only a few weeks ago.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,068
    Mrs Roosevelt was not a lesbian. She was a happily married (to a man) woman, who had multiple children.

    To help with this, it is worth mentioning that said First Lady headed of to Rome to shack up with her girlfriend after her time as First Lady was up.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    Isn't it the case that once elderly and vulnerable people have been vaccinated the number of deaths from Covid-19 will be extremely low since they're heavily concentrated in those groups? So it won't be necessary to vaccinate 100% of the population to get life back to normal.
    Hospital capacity will be the limiting factor, and unfortunately those in hospital are not nearly as old as those who die. Letting it rip after vaccinating all the, say, over 65s would certainly lead to hospital collapse as the virus would tear through the rest leaving too many middle-aged (and young, even) seriously ill. Even over 60s. I'm not sure about over 50s, even that might be not enough.

    And that doesn't count the cost of long COVID in the younger. For getting back to normal I imagine we'd need to vaccinate half the population at least.

    --AS
    Yes, and we do not yet know how effective any of the vaccines is at stopping asymptomatic spread.
    Quite. It's why the concept of "vaccine passport" is probably wishful thinking. Unless one of the vaccines massively reduces asymptomatic transmission (it doesn't much matter whether it stops asymptomatic infection) those vaccinated are not safe and should not put others at risk.

    Having said that, it seems likely that vaccines might be better at reducing asymptomatic transmission -- by reducing viral load, coughing, and days shedding viable virus -- than asymptomatic infection.

    --AS
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,825
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    Isn't it the case that once elderly and vulnerable people have been vaccinated the number of deaths from Covid-19 will be extremely low since they're heavily concentrated in those groups? So it won't be necessary to vaccinate 100% of the population to get life back to normal.
    Hospital capacity will be the limiting factor, and unfortunately those in hospital are not nearly as old as those who die. Letting it rip after vaccinating all the, say, over 65s would certainly lead to hospital collapse as the virus would tear through the rest leaving too many middle-aged (and young, even) seriously ill. Even over 60s. I'm not sure about over 50s, even that might be not enough.

    And that doesn't count the cost of long COVID in the younger. For getting back to normal I imagine we'd need to vaccinate half the population at least.

    --AS
    Yes, and we do not yet know how effective any of the vaccines is at stopping asymptomatic spread.
    I thought the Oxford vaccine trial tested regularly for asymptomatic cases and included asymptomatic positives in its results (in contrast to Pfizer and Moderna). Or am I mistaken?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    I think I mentioned my encounter with an eco-lawyer - he regarded the fast tracking of offshore wind farms as positively evil. Not because of short cuts - but between the industry and the government, they have all the data on shipwrecks, fishing, birds, radar coverage organised, so the the list of questions just gets answered then and there. Not quite overlaying maps of the various no-go areas and building in the bits left over, but close.

    He believed that if billions are to be spent it was a moral duty that the planning process *should* take time.

    Edit - to add, it sounds like Cardiff would also stir up the "let the sea reclaim it" types.
    One could almost say that he was furious that not enough was going to stick to him and his colleagues. :smile:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    I think I mentioned my encounter with an eco-lawyer - he regarded the fast tracking of offshore wind farms as positively evil. Not because of short cuts - but between the industry and the government, they have all the data on shipwrecks, fishing, birds, radar coverage organised, so the the list of questions just gets answered then and there. Not quite overlaying maps of the various no-go areas and building in the bits left over, but close.

    He believed that if billions are to be spent it was a moral duty that the planning process *should* take time.

    Edit - to add, it sounds like Cardiff would also stir up the "let the sea reclaim it" types.
    I'm saying that there is no particular difference in the planning process for the size of lagoons, for 16 or 160 turbines. Bridgewater would be a more challengingproject, because there are a bunch of complex overlapping issues there that might cause a lengthier process. But 5 years should get you planning approvals from start to finish. It's mostly building sea walls.

    Bear in mind, if you go talk to the councillors in Maryport, they are not going to be putting blocks in the way of a £20 billion local spend, for zero carbon zero waste that gives their area huge regeneration project. The people blocking them would the nuclear indusrty. Build one tidal lagoon and the economics of new nuclear will patently make no sense whatsoever.
    Is there any detailed paperwork on the proposals available - how are they proposing to get round the silting issue? Tidal scour? How much power does that sacrifice? etc etc
    Massive, detailed reports have been prepared for Swansea as a template.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Roosevelt was not a lesbian. She was a happily married (to a man) woman, who had multiple children.

    To help with this, it is worth mentioning that said First Lady headed of to Rome to shack up with her girlfriend after her time as First Lady was up.

    Rose Cleveland.

    But, what is the rationale for this line of questioning?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,068

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    Isn't it the case that once elderly and vulnerable people have been vaccinated the number of deaths from Covid-19 will be extremely low since they're heavily concentrated in those groups? So it won't be necessary to vaccinate 100% of the population to get life back to normal.
    Hospital capacity will be the limiting factor, and unfortunately those in hospital are not nearly as old as those who die. Letting it rip after vaccinating all the, say, over 65s would certainly lead to hospital collapse as the virus would tear through the rest leaving too many middle-aged (and young, even) seriously ill. Even over 60s. I'm not sure about over 50s, even that might be not enough.

    And that doesn't count the cost of long COVID in the younger. For getting back to normal I imagine we'd need to vaccinate half the population at least.

    --AS
    Yes, and we do not yet know how effective any of the vaccines is at stopping asymptomatic spread.
    I thought the Oxford vaccine trial tested regularly for asymptomatic cases and included asymptomatic positives in its results (in contrast to Pfizer and Moderna). Or am I mistaken?
    They did test (in some jurisdictions) for asymptomatic cases. However, all their efficacy data refers only to symptomatic CV19.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,068

    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Roosevelt was not a lesbian. She was a happily married (to a man) woman, who had multiple children.

    To help with this, it is worth mentioning that said First Lady headed of to Rome to shack up with her girlfriend after her time as First Lady was up.

    Rose Cleveland.

    But, what is the rationale for this line of questioning?
    That is correct: as President Grovenor Cleveland was unmarried, his (lesbian) sister Rose stepped in as First Lady. A role she fulfilled until Grovenor married 15 months into his Presidency.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,825
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Seems optimistic. Lovely if it happens, but I’m thinking summer more likely.
    Totally delusional if you ask me. Even the summer may be optimistic if further mutations pop up.
    Isn't it the case that once elderly and vulnerable people have been vaccinated the number of deaths from Covid-19 will be extremely low since they're heavily concentrated in those groups? So it won't be necessary to vaccinate 100% of the population to get life back to normal.
    Hospital capacity will be the limiting factor, and unfortunately those in hospital are not nearly as old as those who die. Letting it rip after vaccinating all the, say, over 65s would certainly lead to hospital collapse as the virus would tear through the rest leaving too many middle-aged (and young, even) seriously ill. Even over 60s. I'm not sure about over 50s, even that might be not enough.

    And that doesn't count the cost of long COVID in the younger. For getting back to normal I imagine we'd need to vaccinate half the population at least.

    --AS
    Yes, and we do not yet know how effective any of the vaccines is at stopping asymptomatic spread.
    I thought the Oxford vaccine trial tested regularly for asymptomatic cases and included asymptomatic positives in its results (in contrast to Pfizer and Moderna). Or am I mistaken?
    They did test (in some jurisdictions) for asymptomatic cases. However, all their efficacy data refers only to symptomatic CV19.
    Ah right. Thanks
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    stodge said:

    Pulpstar said:


    People will head out once they've had the vaccine. Can see flights full of 80+ off to Barbados in Feb...

    I know people want to see the back of the virus - I get that - but some of the hyperbole being spouted is delusional.

    On a day when it's clear the emergency services in London and the South-East are struggling to cope with the demand all we get is nonsense about how it will all be over by February. It is of course not just the very old who get seriously ill with the virus though they do disproportionately die from it.

    It now seems the Mail and the Express have finally thrown aside whatever tatters of objectivity they once possessed and have become full-throated cheerleaders for Boris Johnson and the Government.
    No - the Mail and Express are selling hope.

    Look up the extremely sordid history of "cancer cure" stories. The original click bait.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    I think I mentioned my encounter with an eco-lawyer - he regarded the fast tracking of offshore wind farms as positively evil. Not because of short cuts - but between the industry and the government, they have all the data on shipwrecks, fishing, birds, radar coverage organised, so the the list of questions just gets answered then and there. Not quite overlaying maps of the various no-go areas and building in the bits left over, but close.

    He believed that if billions are to be spent it was a moral duty that the planning process *should* take time.

    Edit - to add, it sounds like Cardiff would also stir up the "let the sea reclaim it" types.
    I'm saying that there is no particular difference in the planning process for the size of lagoons, for 16 or 160 turbines. Bridgewater would be a more challengingproject, because there are a bunch of complex overlapping issues there that might cause a lengthier process. But 5 years should get you planning approvals from start to finish. It's mostly building sea walls.

    Bear in mind, if you go talk to the councillors in Maryport, they are not going to be putting blocks in the way of a £20 billion local spend, for zero carbon zero waste that gives their area huge regeneration project. The people blocking them would the nuclear indusrty. Build one tidal lagoon and the economics of new nuclear will patently make no sense whatsoever.
    Is there any detailed paperwork on the proposals available - how are they proposing to get round the silting issue? Tidal scour? How much power does that sacrifice? etc etc
    Massive, detailed reports have been prepared for Swansea as a template.
    Any links?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    I think I mentioned my encounter with an eco-lawyer - he regarded the fast tracking of offshore wind farms as positively evil. Not because of short cuts - but between the industry and the government, they have all the data on shipwrecks, fishing, birds, radar coverage organised, so the the list of questions just gets answered then and there. Not quite overlaying maps of the various no-go areas and building in the bits left over, but close.

    He believed that if billions are to be spent it was a moral duty that the planning process *should* take time.

    Edit - to add, it sounds like Cardiff would also stir up the "let the sea reclaim it" types.
    I'm saying that there is no particular difference in the planning process for the size of lagoons, for 16 or 160 turbines. Bridgewater would be a more challengingproject, because there are a bunch of complex overlapping issues there that might cause a lengthier process. But 5 years should get you planning approvals from start to finish. It's mostly building sea walls.

    Bear in mind, if you go talk to the councillors in Maryport, they are not going to be putting blocks in the way of a £20 billion local spend, for zero carbon zero waste that gives their area huge regeneration project. The people blocking them would the nuclear indusrty. Build one tidal lagoon and the economics of new nuclear will patently make no sense whatsoever.
    Is there any detailed paperwork on the proposals available - how are they proposing to get round the silting issue? Tidal scour? How much power does that sacrifice? etc etc
    Massive, detailed reports have been prepared for Swansea as a template.
    Any links?
    Leave it with me - I'll mail you.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,392
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely the idea Remain will win an Indy Ref with Johnson as PM is quite unlikely, am I wrong?

    Yes.
    It is possible, albeit unlikely. Refusing a further referendum guarantees independence when the next
    I agree. For me the ultimate argument is that I don't give a damn what those lying, deluded buffoons in the SNP said about generations. If the majority of the people of Scotland vote for parties committed to an early referendum then a referendum we will have with all the economic damage, division and chaos that comes with it. This is not the SNP's gift or Boris's. It is the choice of the Scottish people and I can only hope, somewhat forlornly, that they are not so stupid as to vote for this in the first place. But they probably will.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,724
    edited December 2020

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    I think I mentioned my encounter with an eco-lawyer - he regarded the fast tracking of offshore wind farms as positively evil. Not because of short cuts - but between the industry and the government, they have all the data on shipwrecks, fishing, birds, radar coverage organised, so the the list of questions just gets answered then and there. Not quite overlaying maps of the various no-go areas and building in the bits left over, but close.

    He believed that if billions are to be spent it was a moral duty that the planning process *should* take time.

    Edit - to add, it sounds like Cardiff would also stir up the "let the sea reclaim it" types.
    I'm saying that there is no particular difference in the planning process for the size of lagoons, for 16 or 160 turbines. Bridgewater would be a more challengingproject, because there are a bunch of complex overlapping issues there that might cause a lengthier process. But 5 years should get you planning approvals from start to finish. It's mostly building sea walls.

    Bear in mind, if you go talk to the councillors in Maryport, they are not going to be putting blocks in the way of a £20 billion local spend, for zero carbon zero waste that gives their area huge regeneration project. The people blocking them would the nuclear indusrty. Build one tidal lagoon and the economics of new nuclear will patently make no sense whatsoever.
    Is there any detailed paperwork on the proposals available - how are they proposing to get round the silting issue? Tidal scour? How much power does that sacrifice? etc etc
    Massive, detailed reports have been prepared for Swansea as a template.
    Any links?
    Leave it with me - I'll mail you.
    @MarqueeMark

    The initial Welsh scheme proposal seemed to want a subsidy for nearly 100 years.

    Is it the same for Workington?

    My other serious question is whether we can remove that demand from our system entirely by simply investing in upgrading inefficient housing stock to near-zero energy use, which is a greener solution.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    those lying, deluded buffoons

    Hmm.

    Looking forward to your 'offer'.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,822
    rcs1000 said:

    Mrs Roosevelt was not a lesbian. She was a happily married (to a man) woman, who had multiple children.

    To help with this, it is worth mentioning that said First Lady headed of to Rome to shack up with her girlfriend after her time as First Lady was up.

    You are making a number of assumptions in assuming that Rose Cleveland was the only lesbian first lady.
  • Options
    theProletheProle Posts: 950

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    Two issues with shipping containers full of batteries.
    1) They don't actually create any electricity, just fairly inefficiently time-shift fairly small quantities.
    2) The fire problem. When the burn (and they do) it's seriously nasty - they end up full of unstable explosive gas which tends to go bang when you open the doors and let some oxygen in. There was a near miss (as in the explosion didn't kill anyone, entirely by luck and good fortune) in Liverpool recently which generated surprisingly little publicity, also a nastier episode in the US where a firefighter got blown through a chain link fence on opening the door to a supposedly "out" container fire (and remarkably survived).

    I think that some form of building regs in going to discourage people from building stacks of shipping containers full of batteries (certainly at the sorts of scales which might make a difference) after a few nasty incidents (which are inevitable as things are going) get publicised.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,392

    DavidL said:

    those lying, deluded buffoons

    Hmm.

    Looking forward to your 'offer'.
    Not happening tonight. Good night to all and thanks for the comments.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,822
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    Nigelb said:
    That's quite a courthouse they have for this.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,424

    The idea is a continual scaling up, to 3-4 million per week.

    It worth noting that there are 3.2 million over 80s, who make up 54% of the deaths from COVID. Something like 17% of them have had their first job.
    The newspapers keep on using the 1 million a week figure as though it's impressively high, but it really isn't. Hopefully it's the newspapers being crap.

    The limiting factor isn't deaths, as such, but hospitalizations. There are too many people in their 40s and 50s who need hospital treatment to open things up before they've been vaccinated. Our current age-profile of death rates is dependent on everyone being able to receive hospital care if they need it.
    How many weeks does it take to deliver the 14m annual flu jabs?

    I'd have thought the vast majority are delivered in about 6-8 weeks at over 2m per week at peak, but I'm guessing a bit - anyone know the true rate?
    No idea how reliable the data I've found is, but for 2019-20 the best I can work out is:
    September-October: 7.6 million flu vaccinations.
    November: 2.8 million
    December: 600k

    So the vaccinations are, as you'd expect, concentrated in the early months, at around the 1 million a week level.

    We should be able to manage faster (if we have the doses to give).
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,724
    theProle said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    Two issues with shipping containers full of batteries.
    1) They don't actually create any electricity, just fairly inefficiently time-shift fairly small quantities.
    2) The fire problem. When the burn (and they do) it's seriously nasty - they end up full of unstable explosive gas which tends to go bang when you open the doors and let some oxygen in. There was a near miss (as in the explosion didn't kill anyone, entirely by luck and good fortune) in Liverpool recently which generated surprisingly little publicity, also a nastier episode in the US where a firefighter got blown through a chain link fence on opening the door to a supposedly "out" container fire (and remarkably survived).

    I think that some form of building regs in going to discourage people from building stacks of shipping containers full of batteries (certainly at the sorts of scales which might make a difference) after a few nasty incidents (which are inevitable as things are going) get publicised.
    There are new technologies in phase change heat batteries around for a few years now, which have also been looking at that scale.

    Do (eg) Sunamps catch fire?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,822
    theProle said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    Two issues with shipping containers full of batteries.
    1) They don't actually create any electricity, just fairly inefficiently time-shift fairly small quantities.
    2) The fire problem. When the burn (and they do) it's seriously nasty - they end up full of unstable explosive gas which tends to go bang when you open the doors and let some oxygen in. There was a near miss (as in the explosion didn't kill anyone, entirely by luck and good fortune) in Liverpool recently which generated surprisingly little publicity, also a nastier episode in the US where a firefighter got blown through a chain link fence on opening the door to a supposedly "out" container fire (and remarkably survived).

    I think that some form of building regs in going to discourage people from building stacks of shipping containers full of batteries (certainly at the sorts of scales which might make a difference) after a few nasty incidents (which are inevitable as things are going) get publicised.
    A few tweaks to battery chemistry (some of which have already happened) should sort that.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,822

    If the Oxford vaccine is approved before Thursday we will have a good example of when 'a week is a long time in politics'.

    Johnson will end the year in a much stronger position than seemed likely only a few weeks ago.

    I hope it is, but we will have to see.
    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1343230699063504897
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,424

    The idea is a continual scaling up, to 3-4 million per week.

    It worth noting that there are 3.2 million over 80s, who make up 54% of the deaths from COVID. Something like 17% of them have had their first job.
    The newspapers keep on using the 1 million a week figure as though it's impressively high, but it really isn't. Hopefully it's the newspapers being crap.

    The limiting factor isn't deaths, as such, but hospitalizations. There are too many people in their 40s and 50s who need hospital treatment to open things up before they've been vaccinated. Our current age-profile of death rates is dependent on everyone being able to receive hospital care if they need it.
    How many weeks does it take to deliver the 14m annual flu jabs?

    I'd have thought the vast majority are delivered in about 6-8 weeks at over 2m per week at peak, but I'm guessing a bit - anyone know the true rate?
    No idea how reliable the data I've found is, but for 2019-20 the best I can work out is:
    September-October: 7.6 million flu vaccinations.
    November: 2.8 million
    December: 600k

    So the vaccinations are, as you'd expect, concentrated in the early months, at around the 1 million a week level.

    We should be able to manage faster (if we have the doses to give).
    Link
    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/seasonal-flu-vaccine-uptake-in-gp-patients-monthly-data-2019-to-2020
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144
    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting opinions of someone (ie Fox) who claims ‘she doesn’t know the answer’!
    Well, I mean, who the fuck would want to go to Workington to get the story?
    Oi! It's much more interesting than you think. How the hell are the Tories going to level up these areas if they adopt this sort of sneering attitude?
    I suspect Marquee Mark was subtly insulting Clare Fox there, not laughing at the North
    Uh-huh.

    I have actually been to Workington. (Ross's Gull).

    I've also had a lovely chat with Mark Jenkinson, the MP for Workington. About trying to invest £7 billion there....
    Good. I hope you succeed. 🤞
    This Govt. would rather spend tens of billions of taxpayer money subsidising each of Hinkley C and Sizewell C for a far more expensive electricity that benefits France and China instead. It's bizarre.

    But the case for tidal keeps being made. One day they'll get built. (The recognised multiplier in civil engineering projects is 2.8 of the iniital spend. So having a £7 billion spend feels more like £20 billion to the local economies of Workington and Maryport.....)
    A serious question - what effort has been made on looking at the minimum viable size? 7 billion gets you in to the territory where some people believe that the planning enquiry *must* take 20 years. As a moral right.
    About five years covers it. Was enough for Swansea Bay but much of that is in standard environmental impact assessments for fish, birds etc. as well as things such as dredging studies. Planning work has already commenced for Cardiff, which would be nuclear-plant scale in power production. The Cardiff tidal lagoon would also open up the development of a significant area to the east of the city that is currently subject to flooding. The land value uplift of a tidal lagoon there is massive.

    Planning and construction should come in within 10 -12 years to first power for Cardiff. Zero carbon, zero waste, 85% domestic content power. Staggered development means that, for example, the first 4 of 16 turbines in Swansea could be producing by 2025 - if work started next year. The remaining 12 would be 2026. Each turbine powers c.10,000 homes.

    Cardiff by contrast would be two sets of 80 turbines. Some 1.6 million homes.
    I meant minimum spend/size - the problem with mega projects is the planning enquiries. My theory is that shipping containers of batteries will win - simply because they would be very, very hard to stop.

    I think I mentioned my encounter with an eco-lawyer - he regarded the fast tracking of offshore wind farms as positively evil. Not because of short cuts - but between the industry and the government, they have all the data on shipwrecks, fishing, birds, radar coverage organised, so the the list of questions just gets answered then and there. Not quite overlaying maps of the various no-go areas and building in the bits left over, but close.

    He believed that if billions are to be spent it was a moral duty that the planning process *should* take time.

    Edit - to add, it sounds like Cardiff would also stir up the "let the sea reclaim it" types.
    I'm saying that there is no particular difference in the planning process for the size of lagoons, for 16 or 160 turbines. Bridgewater would be a more challengingproject, because there are a bunch of complex overlapping issues there that might cause a lengthier process. But 5 years should get you planning approvals from start to finish. It's mostly building sea walls.

    Bear in mind, if you go talk to the councillors in Maryport, they are not going to be putting blocks in the way of a £20 billion local spend, for zero carbon zero waste that gives their area huge regeneration project. The people blocking them would the nuclear indusrty. Build one tidal lagoon and the economics of new nuclear will patently make no sense whatsoever.
    Is there any detailed paperwork on the proposals available - how are they proposing to get round the silting issue? Tidal scour? How much power does that sacrifice? etc etc
    Massive, detailed reports have been prepared for Swansea as a template.
    Any links?
    Leave it with me - I'll mail you.
    @MarqueeMark

    The initial Welsh scheme proposal seemed to want a subsidy for nearly 100 years.

    Is it the same for Workington?

    My other serious question is whether we can remove that demand from our system entirely by simply investing in upgrading inefficient housing stock to near-zero energy use, which is a greener solution.
    The initial Swansea Bay proposal is for a testbed project of 16 turbines. By its very nature, the electricity price was around that of Hinkley C nuclear (c£92.50). However the working assumptions for Cardiff with 160 turbines are £50-55. Swansea only required a couple of years of subsidy in practice - it would then get rolled into Cardiff. You were talking maybe £40m of Govt money to get a new technology up and running. After that, it is private capital all the way.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,336

    If the Oxford vaccine is approved before Thursday we will have a good example of when 'a week is a long time in politics'.

    Johnson will end the year in a much stronger position than seemed likely only a few weeks ago.

    Plenty of "weeks" between now and the next GE for the lustre to fade.

    Next week, and the remaining weeks in January could be very problematic for the NHS. Let's hope that is another bullet Johnson dodges.
This discussion has been closed.