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).
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.
Knowing one of the people doing a large amount of research on "what happens when you burn a Lithium battery" would that it was that easy. They pose a major problem in several areas because of their "interesting" combustion chemistry - e. g. another of my acquaintances is currently part of a team trying to work out how you scrap electric cars, as just putting them through a shredder like we do ICE cars tends to result in them catching fire.
I don't really understand the chemistry (I'm a mechanical engineer, not a chemist), but I think a large part of the problem is that once hot enough, they are capable of an distructive exothermic reaction even in the absence of oxygen - and if this happens in the absence of oxygen, the decomposition produces a load of flammable gas.
If this was fixable with some small tweaks to battery chemistry that don't significantly compromise the function or life of the battery, it would have happened some time ago - as things stand it clearly hasn't.
"'Britain needs Margaret Thatcher': Voters aged 18 to 24 choose the Iron Lady as the best former Prime Minister to be in charge of tackling Covid-19 and Brexit
Even in Scotland, voters yearn for Maggie Thatcher's famous resolute approach Thatcher nostalgia is shared by Northerners, who bore brunt of unemployment They are the findings of an online survey of 2,000 people by JL Partners"
I find the EU obsession with subsidies interesting:
"The EU had insisted the UK align with its state aid rules. Brussels was concerned that the UK government would seek to find a competitive advantage through subsidies. The UK successfully killed off this idea. The UK will set up its own subsidy regime. The new domestic enforcement body can make decisions over whether state aid has distorted trade after the subsidy has been granted. This is a major concession by the EU."
If there's one country that has spent the last 40 at least years working against Government subsidies, it's not the other 27...
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.
It is, of course, worth noting that the rate of combustion of the batteries in electric cars is around a third that of fuel tanks of ICE vehicles. So, let's not overdo how dangerous they are. (Or at least, recognise that the alternatives are not without issues.)
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.
Knowing one of the people doing a large amount of research on "what happens when you burn a Lithium battery" would that it was that easy. They pose a major problem in several areas because of their "interesting" combustion chemistry - e. g. another of my acquaintances is currently part of a team trying to work out how you scrap electric cars, as just putting them through a shredder like we do ICE cars tends to result in them catching fire.
I don't really understand the chemistry (I'm a mechanical engineer, not a chemist), but I think a large part of the problem is that once hot enough, they are capable of an distructive exothermic reaction even in the absence of oxygen - and if this happens in the absence of oxygen, the decomposition produces a load of flammable gas.
If this was fixable with some small tweaks to battery chemistry that don't significantly compromise the function or life of the battery, it would have happened some time ago - as things stand it clearly hasn't.
Regarding safety, for lithium ion batteries, the lithium iron phosphate chemistry is intrinsically safer than the more common chemistries using cobalt. Longer life cycle, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery#Safety Tesla is already using this in some of its lower end Chinese models, and it’s advantages for bulk storage are clear.
And of course the storage alternative of vanadium flow batteries avoids the problem completely (with other trade offs).
It’s the unanimous decision of @theSNP MPs to vote against Johnson’s #BrexitDeal. Scotland’s Govt & representatives were cut out of the negotiations that led to it. Our country’s interests are not served by it. We won’t own it. Our focus is #independence
You support a No Deal Brexit, so please tell me how that is good for Scotland.
I support being independent from a rotten corrupt supposed equal union, that will be great for Scotland
Comments
In 2020/21, so far Pharmacies are running at about 50% higher. And had done 2.3m by the end of November.
That difference was overwhelmingly due to a larger number in September.
https://psnc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Daily-Flu-Vaccination-data-2020-21-Excel-.xlsx
https://psnc.org.uk/flu-vaccination-data-for-2020-21/
That may not be quite all of the Pharmacy ones.
50% higher seems reasonable as a number for GP ones too, as there was a wider invitation, and takeup may well be higher.
I don't really understand the chemistry (I'm a mechanical engineer, not a chemist), but I think a large part of the problem is that once hot enough, they are capable of an distructive exothermic reaction even in the absence of oxygen - and if this happens in the absence of oxygen, the decomposition produces a load of flammable gas.
If this was fixable with some small tweaks to battery chemistry that don't significantly compromise the function or life of the battery, it would have happened some time ago - as things stand it clearly hasn't.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/devil-in-the-detail-here-s-the-main-elements-of-uk-eu-brexit-deal-1.4445354
Even in Scotland, voters yearn for Maggie Thatcher's famous resolute approach
Thatcher nostalgia is shared by Northerners, who bore brunt of unemployment
They are the findings of an online survey of 2,000 people by JL Partners"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9081207/Voters-aged-18-24-choose-Iron-Lady-best-former-Prime-Minister.html
"The EU had insisted the UK align with its state aid rules. Brussels was concerned that the UK government would seek to find a competitive advantage through subsidies. The UK successfully killed off this idea. The UK will set up its own subsidy regime. The new domestic enforcement body can make decisions over whether state aid has distorted trade after the subsidy has been granted. This is a major concession by the EU."
If there's one country that has spent the last 40 at least years working against Government subsidies, it's not the other 27...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery#Safety
Tesla is already using this in some of its lower end Chinese models, and it’s advantages for bulk storage are clear.
And of course the storage alternative of vanadium flow batteries avoids the problem completely (with other trade offs).
Just about everyone who posts on PB would probably be at risk of this in China.
https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1343451131830272000