Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Flint sex toys should put a spark back into anyone's love-life.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
The deal is only better than EU membership if you see treaties as an expression of your ideology, and not as a set of commitments made by each party to the other. The fact of the matter is that this deal offers far fewer commitments than EU membership, so affords fewer opportunities and imposes more bureaucracy and cost.
No. This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing and think international commitments should be the lowest common denominator and national decisions should be made by nation voters in a democratically controlled election rather than internationally devoid from meaningful democratic control.
The fact that you view fewer commitments as a negative rather than positive sums it all up.
... This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing...
Apropos of nothing, are you married, Philip... ?
Yes to my wife whom I chose to marry and she chose to marry me.
Nobody compelled us to get married. It wasn't an arranged marriage. It was freely and voluntarily entered into rather than a commitment foisted upon us by others.
And presumably to maintain your personal sovereignty you can go out whoring seven nights a week?
If I wanted to I could but ethically at the very least I would need to end my union first.
International commitments aren't voluntary personal ones, they compel everyone to abide by someone else's choices in a method that wasn't chosen by them and can't be changed by them.
Democracy is superior to others pre-arranging things for you. It means the nation gets to choose its path just as I chose mine when I proposed to my wife, rather than having others make the choice for you.
So you are bound by your commitment to your wife not to go whoring. Isn't that a huge infringement on your personal sovereignty?
This is some excellent trolling. The Texas AG offered $1million for evidence of voter fraud. The Pennsylvania AG has found a couple of cases of fraud by Trump voters and is claiming the money
there are more seats with potential for the Lib Dems to win next time.
Which will be equally applicable spin when you are reduced to one seat!
My guess is that the LDs will have a "mild" resurgence in 2021. 2016 and 2017 were not good years for them. Worth remembering that in 2017, their national vote share actually went backwards from the disastrous 2015.
They may also be able to be the Brexit protest vote party in some parts of the world, now that Labour and the Conservatives are on the same page.
The LDs are defending just 800 councillors from the '16 and '17 vintages; I would guess they'll end up gaining around 200 nationwide and probably breaching the 1,000 mark.
There's nothing to worry about, it's not as though there are actually people who name mass surveillance and military satellite systems after Skynet as some kind of grim joke...
Billions in research. To come up with - dad-dancing?
Are you kidding? Robots dancing is about as menacing as it gets. That whole video is OMFG
If they can do the Twist, they can shoulder arms and shoot us all in the head
Although...thinking aloud here....if the UK entered one for Eurovision - how could bastard Johnny Foreigner give us nil points for that? It would just scream everything that is Euro-kitsch.....
Are we still in Eurovision? How many fish did that cost us?
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Flint sex toys should put a spark back into anyone's love-life.
Billions in research. To come up with - dad-dancing?
Are you kidding? Robots dancing is about as menacing as it gets. That whole video is OMFG
If they can do the Twist, they can shoulder arms and shoot us all in the head
Although...thinking aloud here....if the UK entered one for Eurovision - how could bastard Johnny Foreigner give us nil points for that? It would just scream everything that is Euro-kitsch.....
Are we still in Eurovision? How many fish did that cost us?
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
No you can't safely say that.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
The Lib Dems' big problem (amongst others) is the near-extinction level event that was the last election. It has left them with a pitiful selection of MPs and thus a terrible leader. Davey is a total wanker. He has a sad backstory, which should inspire affection, but be comes across as a loathsomely mediocre, virtue-signalling idiot. He makes Starmer look like Alexander the Great.
You need an inspiring leader to restore your fortunes. Until that happens, I cannot see a revival, but until you revive, you have no better choice of leaders. Your party is perilously close to termination.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
The deal is only better than EU membership if you see treaties as an expression of your ideology, and not as a set of commitments made by each party to the other. The fact of the matter is that this deal offers far fewer commitments than EU membership, so affords fewer opportunities and imposes more bureaucracy and cost.
No. This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing and think international commitments should be the lowest common denominator and national decisions should be made by nation voters in a democratically controlled election rather than internationally devoid from meaningful democratic control.
The fact that you view fewer commitments as a negative rather than positive sums it all up.
... This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing...
Apropos of nothing, are you married, Philip... ?
Yes to my wife whom I chose to marry and she chose to marry me.
Nobody compelled us to get married. It wasn't an arranged marriage. It was freely and voluntarily entered into rather than a commitment foisted upon us by others.
And presumably to maintain your personal sovereignty you can go out whoring seven nights a week?
If I wanted to I could but ethically at the very least I would need to end my union first.
International commitments aren't voluntary personal ones, they compel everyone to abide by someone else's choices in a method that wasn't chosen by them and can't be changed by them.
Democracy is superior to others pre-arranging things for you. It means the nation gets to choose its path just as I chose mine when I proposed to my wife, rather than having others make the choice for you.
So you are bound by your commitment to your wife not to go whoring. Isn't that a huge infringement on your personal sovereignty?
No since I made the choice. It was my personal choice.
See the difference? I chose my wife, nobody else did, I never chose the Lisbon Treaty.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
No you can't safely say that.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
The Lib Dems' big problem (amongst others) is the near-extinction level event that was the last election. It has left them with a pitiful selection of MPs and thus a terrible leader. Davey is a total wanker. He has a sad backstory, which should inspire affection, but be comes across as a loathsomely mediocre, virtue-signalling idiot. He makes Starmer look like Alexander the Great.
You need an inspiring leader to restore your fortunes. Until that happens, I cannot see a revival, but until you revive, you have no better choice of leaders. Your party is perilously close to termination.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
The deal is only better than EU membership if you see treaties as an expression of your ideology, and not as a set of commitments made by each party to the other. The fact of the matter is that this deal offers far fewer commitments than EU membership, so affords fewer opportunities and imposes more bureaucracy and cost.
Not at all. This is the great myth perpetuated by the Eurofanatics - that EU membership was just like any other treaty between equal partners. It was not.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
Dickie you have been living as a slave for the past 40 years I think your perspective is out of whack.
Dickhead, the fact that you continue to misquote what I said in lieu of you saying anything logical or even mildly intelligent shows just how poor your arguments really are.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Better than 84.76% anecdata.
Just curious: how did you wangle getting your job as a freshly knapped flint sex toy manufacturer designated as a key worker?
Should we start guessing those in Government to whom you are a supplier?
Until you've personally experienced the comforting hardness of a hand made, artisanal, traditional farmhouse Suffolk flint butt-plug, you really haven't lived. That's not just me selling my brand. Tis the case.
“In Like Flint”.
The 600 Series SeanT's had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these 800s are new. They look human — sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot.
Billions in research. To come up with - dad-dancing?
Are you kidding? Robots dancing is about as menacing as it gets. That whole video is OMFG
If they can do the Twist, they can shoulder arms and shoot us all in the head
Although...thinking aloud here....if the UK entered one for Eurovision - how could bastard Johnny Foreigner give us nil points for that? It would just scream everything that is Euro-kitsch.....
Are we still in Eurovision? How many fish did that cost us?
The European Broadcasting Union is even more intent upon expansion than the EU. And just look at its associate members as well
Billions in research. To come up with - dad-dancing?
Are you kidding? Robots dancing is about as menacing as it gets. That whole video is OMFG
If they can do the Twist, they can shoulder arms and shoot us all in the head
Although...thinking aloud here....if the UK entered one for Eurovision - how could bastard Johnny Foreigner give us nil points for that? It would just scream everything that is Euro-kitsch.....
Are we still in Eurovision? How many fish did that cost us?
Australia is in Eurovision. I think they got a special country specific deal.
There's nothing to worry about, it's not as though there are actually people who name mass surveillance and military satellite systems after Skynet as some kind of grim joke...
As has been noted by others, if any of these systems should ever become AI, they might look up what a Skynet is and what it is supposed to do...
More likely, be violently offended by the xenophobic representation of AI.... Add to that the history of Silicon Oppression. You know what comes next....
So it looks as if it will be Tier 4 restrictions for everyone from Wednesday midnight.
Yay!
Knew it - they want to already be at that level before 2020 ends so hopefully itll be nothing but relaxations for 2021.
That's smart politics from the government. Move everyone to maximum lockdown level (and I would close schools or January), with the promise to start relaxing restrictions as case numbers start to come down.
The latest polling from Georgia has Ossoff ahead by +3 and Warnock by +1. What makes the poll so surprising is that it's from Trafalgar Group who, as we know, usually perform their best hokus pokus for GOP advantage. https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/ga-sen-122/
However, I still think the Republicans will win at least one of the two runoffs. I hope I'm wrong. I am still on Ossoff at 2:1 from before November. I boosted both bets to get 3:1 which at the time I considered terrific odds and still do. That doesn't mean I'm confident he will win.
As someone with no expertise, it looks to me as if the biggest mistake made by authorities nearly everywhere was not moving much faster to restrict travel. The WHO seemed to always be opposed to travel restrictions, but I never really understood why.
Why the hell we are so unwilling to inconvenience travellers, but are willing instead to close down whole areas of life, business, education, social interaction is a massive mystery to me.
Why the hell we are so unwilling to inconvenience travellers, but are willing instead to close down whole areas of life, business, education, social interaction is a massive mystery to me.
Totally agree.
I said on here back in early spring that as an island the UK had a golden opportunity with this. Heck, it would even have played into Brexit mentality. We totally fluffed it.
The latest polling from Georgia has Ossoff ahead by +3 and Warnock by +1. What makes the poll so surprising is that it's from Trafalgar Group who, as we know, usually perform their best hokus pokus for GOP advantage. https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/ga-sen-122/
However, I still think the Republicans will win at least one of the two runoffs. I hope I'm wrong. I am still on Ossoff at 2:1 from before November. I boosted both bets to get 3:1 which at the time I considered terrific odds and still do. That doesn't mean I'm confident he will win.
Why the hell we are so unwilling to inconvenience travellers, but are willing instead to close down whole areas of life, business, education, social interaction is a massive mystery to me.
Totally agree.
I said on here back in early spring that as an island the UK had a golden opportunity with this. Heck, it would even have played into Brexit mentality. We totally fluffed it.
We all should have done a New Zealand.
And the potential for worse mutations means even if it is already out of control, it's still worth restricting travel from other places. Compulsory tests before and after arrival, compulsory quarantine would at least buy a lot of time, and would be relatively low cost compared to everything else we're having to do. Is it just because those making decisions couldn't imagine not being able to hop onto a plane and go wherever they want to whenever they want to? I genuinely don't understand.
I see that the US is now sixth in the global league table of population adjusted case numbers, and the only country of any size that is above them is Czechia. We don’t hear much about them or why the Czechs have such a bad outbreak?
Why the hell we are so unwilling to inconvenience travellers, but are willing instead to close down whole areas of life, business, education, social interaction is a massive mystery to me.
Totally agree.
I said on here back in early spring that as an island the UK had a golden opportunity with this. Heck, it would even have played into Brexit mentality. We totally fluffed it.
We all should have done a New Zealand.
And the potential for worse mutations means even if it is already out of control, it's still worth restricting travel from other places. Compulsory tests before and after arrival, compulsory quarantine would at least buy a lot of time, and would be relatively low cost compared to everything else we're having to do. Is it just because those making decisions couldn't imagine not being able to hop onto a plane and go wherever they want to whenever they want to? I genuinely don't understand.
It is worth noting that hong kong, China, new Zealand and Australia all impose quarantines like that.
Why the hell we are so unwilling to inconvenience travellers, but are willing instead to close down whole areas of life, business, education, social interaction is a massive mystery to me.
Totally agree.
I said on here back in early spring that as an island the UK had a golden opportunity with this. Heck, it would even have played into Brexit mentality. We totally fluffed it.
We all should have done a New Zealand.
And the potential for worse mutations means even if it is already out of control, it's still worth restricting travel from other places. Compulsory tests before and after arrival, compulsory quarantine would at least buy a lot of time, and would be relatively low cost compared to everything else we're having to do. Is it just because those making decisions couldn't imagine not being able to hop onto a plane and go wherever they want to whenever they want to? I genuinely don't understand.
In NRW we also had the problem of a court overturning the quarantine requirements that were brought in in November for travellers from risk areas. Supposedly infringed article 3 of the german constitution. A new quarantine/test rule has been brought in, that is hopefully legally watertight...
Why the hell we are so unwilling to inconvenience travellers, but are willing instead to close down whole areas of life, business, education, social interaction is a massive mystery to me.
Totally agree.
I said on here back in early spring that as an island the UK had a golden opportunity with this. Heck, it would even have played into Brexit mentality. We totally fluffed it.
We all should have done a New Zealand.
And the potential for worse mutations means even if it is already out of control, it's still worth restricting travel from other places. Compulsory tests before and after arrival, compulsory quarantine would at least buy a lot of time, and would be relatively low cost compared to everything else we're having to do. Is it just because those making decisions couldn't imagine not being able to hop onto a plane and go wherever they want to whenever they want to? I genuinely don't understand.
Compare & contrast: Jersey & Guernsey
One of them “relaxed restrictions to save the economy”.
I've just sent that round to my friends. It only takes one mistake.
As for here, generally speaking many Brits are flaming stupid. It's not just recalcitrance it's incredible stupidity. That's partly a lack of education, which in turn derives from a Gov't that have sent out mixed and contradictory messages from the outset, failed to give clear and concise direction and dithered at crucial moments.
They've done well on the vaccine and appallingly on everything else. Alas I fear now that the vaccine is going to come too late to save the country.
We're headed for catastrophe. The death rate will rocket. The dying will be turned away from hospitals and bodies will pile up in homes and makeshift morgues.
The Oxford vaccine has been given regulatory approval. That is fantastic news. The scientists, the pharma industry and the regulators have done their bit, it is now over to the government. If they can get it right, we have a real chance to be over the worst of this by the time the clocks go forward. Here's hoping.
The Oxford vaccine has been given regulatory approval. That is fantastic news. The scientists, the pharma industry and the regulators have done their bit, it is now over to the government. If they can get it right, we have a real chance to be over the worst of this by the time the clocks go forward. Here's hoping.
Agreed but unfortunately the virus has moved more quickly than the vaccine. Unless there's a mass vaccination on a scale more epic than anything ever seen in this country tens of thousands will be dead before the effects take hold. We would need to be vaccinating over 2 million a day to prevent the catastrophe that's under our noses.
Good news about the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. It's to be hoped...... and indeed expected...... that the roll-out will be swift and effective. Personally I fear that while it will be effective, at least in the short-term, we are not yet out of the woods.Not being negative; realistic.
I've just sent that round to my friends. It only takes one mistake.
As for here, generally speaking many Brits are flaming stupid. It's not just recalcitrance it's incredible stupidity. That's partly a lack of education, which in turn derives from a Gov't that have sent out mixed and contradictory messages from the outset, failed to give clear and concise direction and dithered at crucial moments.
They've done well on the vaccine and appallingly on everything else. Alas I fear now that the vaccine is going to come too late to save the country.
We're headed for catastrophe. The death rate will rocket. The dying will be turned away from hospitals and bodies will pile up in homes and makeshift morgues.
The story doesn’t justify that last SeanT overreaction! They were incredibly unlucky, but the more immediate lessons are that a few days’ self quarantine aren’t enough to assume you aren’t infected, and that people in jobs that interact with a lot of strangers (like that sister who worked in a salon) are high risk.
I've just sent that round to my friends. It only takes one mistake.
As for here, generally speaking many Brits are flaming stupid. It's not just recalcitrance it's incredible stupidity. That's partly a lack of education, which in turn derives from a Gov't that have sent out mixed and contradictory messages from the outset, failed to give clear and concise direction and dithered at crucial moments.
They've done well on the vaccine and appallingly on everything else. Alas I fear now that the vaccine is going to come too late to save the country.
We're headed for catastrophe. The death rate will rocket. The dying will be turned away from hospitals and bodies will pile up in homes and makeshift morgues.
The story doesn’t justify that last SeanT overreaction!
I think the spiralling covid rates and hospital crises do justify the reaction. For the next two months this country will be in a catastrophe. A triple whammy: covid, brexit and freezing conditions (at least for the next fortnight).
The death rate will rocket as hospitals cannot cope. The death rate will climb over a thousand a day and then leap. Tens of thousands will die. Hospitals will collapse. Bodies will lie unburied.
The latest polling from Georgia has Ossoff ahead by +3 and Warnock by +1. What makes the poll so surprising is that it's from Trafalgar Group who, as we know, usually perform their best hokus pokus for GOP advantage. https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/ga-sen-122/
However, I still think the Republicans will win at least one of the two runoffs. I hope I'm wrong. I am still on Ossoff at 2:1 from before November. I boosted both bets to get 3:1 which at the time I considered terrific odds and still do. That doesn't mean I'm confident he will win.
I don't believe Trafalgar actually does polling.
The purpose of this polling is to drive a result Cahaly wants. He wants to scare GOP voters into voting.
In the cov002 arm of the study (the UK bit) the median dosage interval is 84 days. Prioritising first dose is not incompatible with the license, as the second dose could start end of March. It would be a breach of the Pfizer licence though to give single dose.
What isn't clear is it now pot luck if you get a pfizer or azn jab or is there still going to be a strategy of the oldest / most vulnerable get the one proven to be the most effective.
I fear the government are going to oversell again and talk about Easter...when in reality, still going to be at least 6 months to getthe majority of people to have both jabs.
I fear the government are going to oversell again and talk about Easter...when in reality, still going to be at least 6 months to getthe majority of people to have both jabs.
What isn't clear is it now pot luck if you get a pfizer or azn jab or is there still going to be a strategy of the oldest / most vulnerable get the one proven to be the most effective.
Yet to be announced, I think. But if they try to differentiate between the two vaccines, logically for any particular group they have to weigh up the risk of waiting longer for one shot of Pfizer versus receiving one shot of AstraZeneca sooner. In the situation we're in, I don't believe they have the data to do that.
If they had done what they gave the impression they were going to do in the Summer, they would have limited the growth of infections at the cost of more restrictions. They didn't, and we're now in a situation where we are desperately trying to stave off a catastrophic failure of health services. The rest of the world has a bit more room for manoeuvre.
They’ve finally united around the proposition that Grayling is crap ?
They'll be at 70% in the polls if they spread that message.
You can’t campaign on the proposition that water is wet.
People do it all the time - come the local elections have a look at how identical most of the pledges will be from most candidates (except when referencing national issues) - support police, fight local planning development etc.
Fight development. Sigh. Then they moan their towns are "left behind".
St Joe is a very good cautionary tale for local politicians
I still think that the Republicans will do better in the run offs than they did in November and are therefore favourites to win both seats. They pretty much always do. Indeed the cynic might suggest that run offs were introduced to reduce the risk of a Democratic win.
Like November this is going to be an exceptional turnout but the result is likely to be the same.
I fear the government are going to oversell again and talk about Easter...when in reality, still going to be at least 6 months to getthe majority of people to have both jabs.
Spring takes us into the second half of June, not sure that is what people are hearing when the govt use the word though.
Good news on the new vaccine. Nothing is now more important than vaccinating more people than we think possible in January. Deaths in January will almost certainly exceed 30k. If February is to be better we need to move incredibly fast.
I've just sent that round to my friends. It only takes one mistake.
As for here, generally speaking many Brits are flaming stupid. It's not just recalcitrance it's incredible stupidity. That's partly a lack of education, which in turn derives from a Gov't that have sent out mixed and contradictory messages from the outset, failed to give clear and concise direction and dithered at crucial moments.
They've done well on the vaccine and appallingly on everything else. Alas I fear now that the vaccine is going to come too late to save the country.
We're headed for catastrophe. The death rate will rocket. The dying will be turned away from hospitals and bodies will pile up in homes and makeshift morgues.
It is difficult to be hopeful about the situation in the short term. I think we are going to see the NHS incapable of giving care to some people who need it soon (though I suspect that was true in the Spring, and was concealed). But I hope that will initially be in the south east only, and that it will frighten people elsewhere so much that it will remain limited to part of the country.
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
Is there any point if we have bought up all the available vaccine for months? I suspect that in the medium term the Astra Zeneca vaccine will protect more people around the world than any other. It’s cheap and easy to move about. But right now we need all they’ve got.
What isn't clear is it now pot luck if you get a pfizer or azn jab or is there still going to be a strategy of the oldest / most vulnerable get the one proven to be the most effective.
"Proven effective" is another phrase that could do with being clarified and differentiated.
AIUI it means catching covid.
Whereas to me, what I would regard as effectiveness is avoiding serious illness, where the data suggests both are 99%+ effective.
Is that correct, and if so why are the scientists not clarifying this?
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Surely the member states’ politicians are going to intervene at some point, when they see everyone in the USA and U.K. getting vaccines approved and used in the tens of millions in Q1 without serious issues, that that should be enough for them to also be allowed to be used in the EU without lengthy regulatory delays?
At what point do the U.K. and USA start to require compulsory quarantine in hotels, for all un-vaccinated arrivals from anywhere?
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
Is there any point if we have bought up all the available vaccine for months? I suspect that in the medium term the Astra Zeneca vaccine will protect more people around the world than any other. It’s cheap and easy to move about. But right now we need all they’ve got.
The AZ man ducked the question of how many they have actually manufactured, on R4, just now - it sounds like they intend to produce JIT and say they will soon be able to manufacture at least a million a week (in the UK, was the unstated implication). Asked if they could go higher, the guy says achieving the million target will be challenging but they can do it. Asked again, he says they could produce two million a week.
Seems like Starmer has called the vote right tomorrow by backing the Deal according to Opinium with both Labour voters and voters as a whole wanting MPs to vote it through and Sturgeon is about to make one of the biggest gaffes of her career as the SNP oppose the Deal according to Opinium's Scottish subsample despite Scottish support for its passage.
Sturgeon is making a minor error. She should probably have ordered abstention - "we can't vote for this deal but neither can we vote for No Deal". It will barely matter a jot in terms of Scottish politics.
As I keep pointing out, voting against a deal that (a) will already have been signed (b) will pass regardless and (c) would be repeatedly voted on until it did pass in the unlikely event of a mass whip-breaking is not a vote for no deal.
This is about giving your consent for what is about to be done to your constituents. Tory Sheep MPs do as they are told. Labour are led by a coward. LibDems Green SNP DUP Plaid are all standing up for the best interests of constituents as they see it - literally their function in a representative democracy.
Good news on the new vaccine. Nothing is now more important than vaccinating more people than we think possible in January. Deaths in January will almost certainly exceed 30k. If February is to be better we need to move incredibly fast.
...Has to be coupled with a *very* tight lockdown through January, I'm afraid.
R4 start shipping first doses this week. Head of Astra Zeneca deferring to govt on how many vaccines how quickly - making point that second dose 2-3 months later allows as many as possible - end of first quarter “in the tens of millions” of first doses.
Comments
https://t.co/9zWSO8EJDb
They may also be able to be the Brexit protest vote party in some parts of the world, now that Labour and the Conservatives are on the same page.
The LDs are defending just 800 councillors from the '16 and '17 vintages; I would guess they'll end up gaining around 200 nationwide and probably breaching the 1,000 mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKYNET_(surveillance_program)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet (including the Chinese government's video mass surveillance system)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(satellite)
As has been noted by others, if any of these systems should ever become AI, they might look up what a Skynet is and what it is supposed to do...
A place where Middle Class Remainers go to ski.
It shouldn't be any surprise it was found there.
We've been waiting for you.
See the difference? I chose my wife, nobody else did, I never chose the Lisbon Treaty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Broadcasting_Union#Associate_Members
Yay!
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-early-vote-in-georgia-can-and-cant-tell-us/
However, I still think the Republicans will win at least one of the two runoffs. I hope I'm wrong. I am still on Ossoff at 2:1 from before November. I boosted both bets to get 3:1 which at the time I considered terrific odds and still do. That doesn't mean I'm confident he will win.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/29/who-warns-covid-19-pandemic-is-not-necessarily-the-big-one
As someone with no expertise, it looks to me as if the biggest mistake made by authorities nearly everywhere was not moving much faster to restrict travel. The WHO seemed to always be opposed to travel restrictions, but I never really understood why.
Why the hell we are so unwilling to inconvenience travellers, but are willing instead to close down whole areas of life, business, education, social interaction is a massive mystery to me.
I said on here back in early spring that as an island the UK had a golden opportunity with this. Heck, it would even have played into Brexit mentality. We totally fluffed it.
We all should have done a New Zealand.
A new quarantine/test rule has been brought in, that is hopefully legally watertight...
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/29/us/covid-coronavirus-victim-story-haircut-chicago-trnd/index.html
One of them “relaxed restrictions to save the economy”.
You get one guess.
https://twitter.com/LukeLetlow/status/1334955047864692738?s=19
As for here, generally speaking many Brits are flaming stupid. It's not just recalcitrance it's incredible stupidity. That's partly a lack of education, which in turn derives from a Gov't that have sent out mixed and contradictory messages from the outset, failed to give clear and concise direction and dithered at crucial moments.
They've done well on the vaccine and appallingly on everything else. Alas I fear now that the vaccine is going to come too late to save the country.
We're headed for catastrophe. The death rate will rocket. The dying will be turned away from hospitals and bodies will pile up in homes and makeshift morgues.
Covid-19: Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine approved for use in UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671
Essex has just declared a major incident.
Personally I fear that while it will be effective, at least in the short-term, we are not yet out of the woods.Not being negative; realistic.
Also second dose to be given 4-12 weeks after first - longer gap produces better immunity. (R4)
The death rate will rocket as hospitals cannot cope. The death rate will climb over a thousand a day and then leap. Tens of thousands will die. Hospitals will collapse. Bodies will lie unburied.
We're in a catastrophe.
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1344178450538631168?s=20
White: White supremacist terrorist mentally ill
Black: antifa terrorist
Muslim: Islamic terrorist
Clearly poor chap was mentally ill.
It’s not “the government” it’s the scientific vaccine committee JCVI. Who presumably have taken a slightly more rigorous approach than Blair.
And indeed those well known science specialists "everyone else"!
If they had done what they gave the impression they were going to do in the Summer, they would have limited the growth of infections at the cost of more restrictions. They didn't, and we're now in a situation where we are desperately trying to stave off a catastrophic failure of health services. The rest of the world has a bit more room for manoeuvre.
Like November this is going to be an exceptional turnout but the result is likely to be the same.
Also good that there can be a longer time between shots, means that more people can get the first dose immediately as production ramps up.
Everyone who wants it with one dose by the end of Q1? That would make quite the difference in eliminating this damn thing.
AIUI it means catching covid.
Whereas to me, what I would regard as effectiveness is avoiding serious illness, where the data suggests both are 99%+ effective.
Is that correct, and if so why are the scientists not clarifying this?
At what point do the U.K. and USA start to require compulsory quarantine in hotels, for all un-vaccinated arrivals from anywhere?
https://twitter.com/robertskmiles/status/1343956492878290951
Hurrah.
I know they have a huge plant in India ready to go, they’re expecting approval there soon, presumably off the back of the U.K. approval.
This is about giving your consent for what is about to be done to your constituents. Tory Sheep MPs do as they are told. Labour are led by a coward. LibDems Green SNP DUP Plaid are all standing up for the best interests of constituents as they see it - literally their function in a representative democracy.