And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Have to say that's utter nonsense. We have General Elections every 4-5 years normally (we had three in four and a half years so there are exceptions).
We do vote "again and again" - that's democracy. Saying everything is cast in stone and can't change "for a generation" us profoundly undemocratic.
It’s the difference between electing a representative body for a short period of time and fundamental change in the constitutional landscape
Like Brexit ?
Yes, it was right that our membership of the EU is tested every 20 years or so
When a party wins an election with that testing of 'our' membership in its manifesto, or are you now saying this should be something to put on the statute book? Perhaps there should be a referendum on it..
There needs to be demand for a change and a reasonable period to time needs to have passed since the last referendum
Surely a dramatic change in the constitution, status, or to a significant argument used on which decisions were made, justifies a referendum no matter how short the period since the last one.
A key argument given for maintaining the Union was the ability for Scotland to stay in the EU so leaving the EU is a fundamental change. It is made more fundamental given that there was a clear vote to stay in the EU by the Scots.
Whether intentional or not, the Scots were badly mislead.
It is apparently a well established constitutional principle that should a referendum be lost, based on what proves subsequently to be a blatant untruth, that precludes another vote for a couple of decades.
I'm sure there's a Latin tag for suck it up, loser.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
29.6% - reasonably close to the planned 25% especially considering the logistical challenge in getting the vaccine to those who can't travel by themselves safely to hospitals.
Those figures came out on Christmas Eve so hopefully we will get another update tomorrow. The UK figures are on the gov.uk dashboard but not broken down by age.
It is annoying....
I've already written to them about the different aggregations for age related data.....
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
I've just had my jab at my local surgery. I'm in the 75-79 age cohort. My surgery intends to do 3,000 vaccinations of this cohort today. Their organisation is impressive. It includes sitting with a cup of tea for 15 minutes after the jab to make sure you don't keel over. I didn't keel over.
Abandon the league and let the league table stand as it now.
Works for me...
Actually, I would prefer a pause until Easter, finish the Leagues with a gap for the Euros, and end the season in the Autumn, allowing a break before the world Cup.
A plague on Starmer's Brexit Red-Tory Labour Party. Today at least, more contemptible than Johnson's Tories.
The Labour Party should apologise. They should apologise to every remain voter who ever trusted them. They killed Mays soft deal, and then voted through Boris’s hard deal. And they sat in their seats when there was a vote for confirmatory referendum.
When Boris said in his press conference we have frictionless trade with the EU, the cake and eat it, he quite simply lied. And it’s not just extra administration and bureaucracy placed on British business (and from there on all of us) he’s lying about - heres the kicker, we have achieved absolutely nothing in return for becoming poorer. Under terms of Boris deal we can’t diverge from the EU ratchet clause and enjoy any freedom without an argument and the EU slapping tariffs on us. ERG, who Starmer joined in the lobby today, actually want that outcome.
But it’s not a Tory Brexit anymore. Starmer has killed that idea off today too.
Labour have never been led by anyone as stupid as Starmer and the cronies around him.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
We already know the asymptomatic can spread it.
The vaccine might make you an asymptomatic spreader, we don't know that yet it is too early to tell. But the JCVI clearly believe it will reduce spread which is why it is prioritising NHS staff and Care staff.
Yes but if you are infected with no symptoms you are still infected. And I thought the trials proved that the vaccine reduces the chance of being infected.
So, if the trials do NOT prove it also reduces the chance of you spreading the virus, the inference is that people might be able to spread the virus even when not infected by it, symptoms or not.
See what I mean?
You've reached a nonsense conclusion on the basis of a misunderstanding that's already been explained to you. The trials did not show people were not infected. Only that they didn't have symptoms.
Harsh! I posed a logical question based on my misunderstanding of the trials MO and you kindly answered it and in the process cleared up my misunderstanding. But I hadn't seen your answer when I wrote this follow-up.
Perhaps I've exceeded my pb.com quota for the day. Back to the sock knitting...
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
I've just had my jab at my local surgery. I'm in the 75-79 age cohort. My surgery intends to do 3,000 vaccinations of this cohort today. Their organisation is impressive. It includes sitting with a cup of tea for 15 minutes after the jab to make sure you don't keel over. I didn't keel over.
That is impressive, good to see somewhere already on Priority 3. You won't be a statistic until next week though ;-)
A plague on Starmer's Brexit Red-Tory Labour Party. Today at least, more contemptible than Johnson's Tories.
The Labour Party should apologise. They should apologise to every remain voter who ever trusted them. They killed Mays soft deal, and then voted through Boris’s hard deal. And they sat in their seats when there was a vote for confirmatory referendum.
When Boris said in his press conference we have frictionless trade with the EU, the cake and eat it, he quite simply lied. And it’s not just extra administration and bureaucracy placed on British business (and from there on all of us) he’s lying about - heres the kicker, we have achieved absolutely nothing in return for becoming poorer. Under terms of Boris deal we can’t diverge from the EU ratchet clause and enjoy any freedom without an argument and the EU slapping tariffs on us. ERG, who Starmer joined in the lobby today, actually want that outcome.
But it’s not a Tory Brexit anymore. Starmer has killed that idea off today too.
Labour have never been led by anyone as stupid as Starmer and the cronies around him.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
I've just had my jab at my local surgery. I'm in the 75-79 age cohort. My surgery intends to do 3,000 vaccinations of this cohort today. Their organisation is impressive. It includes sitting with a cup of tea for 15 minutes after the jab to make sure you don't keel over. I didn't keel over.
A plague on Starmer's Brexit Red-Tory Labour Party. Today at least, more contemptible than Johnson's Tories.
The Labour Party should apologise. They should apologise to every remain voter who ever trusted them. They killed Mays soft deal, and then voted through Boris’s hard deal. And they sat in their seats when there was a vote for confirmatory referendum.
When Boris said in his press conference we have frictionless trade with the EU, the cake and eat it, he quite simply lied. And it’s not just extra administration and bureaucracy placed on British business (and from there on all of us) he’s lying about - heres the kicker, we have achieved absolutely nothing in return for becoming poorer. Under terms of Boris deal we can’t diverge from the EU ratchet clause and enjoy any freedom without an argument and the EU slapping tariffs on us. ERG, who Starmer joined in the lobby today, actually want that outcome.
But it’s not a Tory Brexit anymore. Starmer has killed that idea off today too.
Labour have never been led by anyone as stupid as Starmer and the cronies around him.
Exhibit A - Corbyn
Corbyn never made a blunder as stupid as this one. Sneaky, unlikable, Marxist yes. As politically Stupid as Starmer? No.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
I've just had my jab at my local surgery. I'm in the 75-79 age cohort. My surgery intends to do 3,000 vaccinations of this cohort today. Their organisation is impressive. It includes sitting with a cup of tea for 15 minutes after the jab to make sure you don't keel over. I didn't keel over.
You always come across as a much younger poster than that. (As in energy, rather than immaturity, I might add!)
In the form of the Twelve Day of Christmas, since the last Scottish Referendum we will have had:
3 General Elections 2 Scottish Elections 1 Brexit Referendum
How much more is needed for a Partridge in a Pear Tree for it to be considered 'a reasonable period of time' since the last one? 1 nationwide election since the last one would be enough for me but 6 nationwide elections in that time period is surely far more than enough to recognise time has changed.
The "time" argument is a red herring imo. There's been a fundamental change of circumstances. If there hadn't been, it would be a bit soon to be having another Ref, but there has, undeniably so, and if on top of that the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood on a Sindy2 platform, the case for it looks pretty solid to me.
The 'significant change' argument goes against having an early indyref as much as it goes for it. If it is such a significant change, how can an indyref be valid when the ramifications of such a significant change as Brexit are not yet known? Surely a period of 5 years to experience life in post-Brexit Britain is sensible and warranted. What could be the harm to the Indy cause? It will win by a landslide if Brexit is half as bad as it's cracked up to be.
You lot have had 4 & 1/2 years to explain how great Brexit is going to be and convince voters of that. You can regurgitate all that good stuff in a referendum campaign.
Meh. There's no argument for making a massive constitutional decision now, in the immediate slipstream of both Brexit and Coronavirus, that stacks up on any practical or moral level. There's just political calculation on the part of 'you lot' that there will never be a better time politically.
There's even an argument to say it does the Indy cause a disservice to hold it now. It is likely that after this referendum, there will not be another for a very long time. Should Scottish voters’ caution win out over their indignation, you might seriously regret not waiting for less troubled times.
From someone who I understand was too scrupulous to vote in the first referendum, it's very touching that your now pronouncing on what's the best time to have a vote. Well done for rolling up your sleeves and getting stuck in!
We could play a great drinking game by downing our tipple of choice every time you respond to an argument by attacking the arguer for making 'pronouncements' (aka having views that disagree with yours). Bonus two fingers if you use the words 'lofty' or 'Scotch experts'. One might almost think you didn't have a retort worth making.
I suppose we have to take the rush toward Indyref 2 as something of a vote of confidence in Brexit and the Union. I'm glad you're so optimistic that you feel the likelihood of a win receding so fast.
And why are your prime minster and his various fingerlings so desperate to postpone a referendum? Surely not because they lack faith in the Union and their ability to convert people to that view (aka being gutless)? The best you lot could manage in 5 years is being beaten by a landslide in a referendum, a distant second in Scotland by the 'we hate Brexit & BJ>we love Brexit & BJ' party, and 18 polls in a row supporting indy. What are you expecting to turn up?
I may have a chance to buy 1/3rd acre of land behind by garden. I currently rent it from the landowner. How can a fair price be established? Would it be a multiple of the rent or is there a per acre guide for "garden land". There is no development potential and the land is on a slope and is no use to a farmer or as a horse paddock.
Alternatively, would the adjusted garden size - which would be increasing sixfold I guess - put value on my house? And if so would the current landowner argue for the extra value?
Finally, would there be a separate land ownership for the land in isolation with the land registry, or would the boundaries of my current plot be expanded to envelope the new land? Are there any stamp duty implications either way?
Any help much appreciated.
I disagree with most of the others on this except perhaps @TimT and @MarqueeMark.
It is a marketplace of one buyer and one seller, so considerations such as "fair market price" are peripheral at best. It is worth what you will buy it for and the Great Estate will sell it for, nothing else.
You need to put yourself in their head and do a cost benefit from their point of view.
I would punt that they have let it for a relative peppercorn because it saves them having to spend some time and £200-£500 a year + admin managing it.
I would say it may add value to your house, but perhaps only 1-3%, for the correct buyer. If your street is all samey then it is an advantage.
Planning: the content of the rental agreement is private, and therefore not a Relevant Planning Matter; they could claim it was an elephant for all it matters. Though long term proven usage as a garden may give you a right to do so by prescription if no one has attempted to enforce. You would need I think 10 years proven use. Perhaps buy it with "can't be sure it is garden" as your argument, then serve your proof on the Council later. Though the GE surely know their planning stuff.
Stuff that matters is whether it is a small awkward parcel that makes one of their fields square, whether they think *they* can develop it in the next hundred years, whether the transaction is big enough to be worth the bother etc. They could use it eg as part of the compulsory 10% open space in a medium sized estate to allow more houses on the flat bit, or as a quid pro quo to make another development acceptable (which was what Sarah Beeny did).
Don't forget that in a couple of years they may be able to gain an income from "public funds for public goods" by turning it into a wildlife meadow or a copse.
I would say that anything under 20k will not be worth the hassle for them, so perhaps start with 20k + an overage clause, and willing to go to double or treble that, and paying costs. Expect maybe 2k to 5k costs if you have a custom agreement. You could even offer a preemptive right ro repurchase at double plus land inflation.
Can you get some neighbours to make parallel offers, to make it a bigger deal?
On the parcel, you either have the buggeration of combining now, or of combining them when you sell. I would do it now, as time is of the essence when selling.
There is a sweet spot for you in that Stamp Duty does not apply (I think) on transactions under 40k.
The Salisbury Doctrine should apply to the Lords vote shouldn't it?
You mean the Salisbury-Addison convention that allows the Lords to delay legislation for up to a year?
The Parliament Act allows the Lords to delay it for a year.
Doesn't the Salisbury-Addison Convention mean they shouldn't oppose or delay it since getting a trade deal (if one could be negotiated) was in the Manifesto?
In the form of the Twelve Day of Christmas, since the last Scottish Referendum we will have had:
3 General Elections 2 Scottish Elections 1 Brexit Referendum
How much more is needed for a Partridge in a Pear Tree for it to be considered 'a reasonable period of time' since the last one? 1 nationwide election since the last one would be enough for me but 6 nationwide elections in that time period is surely far more than enough to recognise time has changed.
The "time" argument is a red herring imo. There's been a fundamental change of circumstances. If there hadn't been, it would be a bit soon to be having another Ref, but there has, undeniably so, and if on top of that the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood on a Sindy2 platform, the case for it looks pretty solid to me.
The 'significant change' argument goes against having an early indyref as much as it goes for it. If it is such a significant change, how can an indyref be valid when the ramifications of such a significant change as Brexit are not yet known? Surely a period of 5 years to experience life in post-Brexit Britain is sensible and warranted. What could be the harm to the Indy cause? It will win by a landslide if Brexit is half as bad as it's cracked up to be.
You lot have had 4 & 1/2 years to explain how great Brexit is going to be and convince voters of that. You can regurgitate all that good stuff in a referendum campaign.
Meh. There's no argument for making a massive constitutional decision now, in the immediate slipstream of both Brexit and Coronavirus, that stacks up on any practical or moral level. There's just political calculation on the part of 'you lot' that there will never be a better time politically.
There's even an argument to say it does the Indy cause a disservice to hold it now. It is likely that after this referendum, there will not be another for a very long time. Should Scottish voters’ caution win out over their indignation, you might seriously regret not waiting for less troubled times.
From someone who I understand was too scrupulous to vote in the first referendum, it's very touching that your now pronouncing on what's the best time to have a vote. Well done for rolling up your sleeves and getting stuck in!
We could play a great drinking game by downing our tipple of choice every time you respond to an argument by attacking the arguer for making 'pronouncements' (aka having views that disagree with yours). Bonus two fingers if you use the words 'lofty' or 'Scotch experts'. One might almost think you didn't have a retort worth making.
I suppose we have to take the rush toward Indyref 2 as something of a vote of confidence in Brexit and the Union. I'm glad you're so optimistic that you feel the likelihood of a win receding so fast.
And why are your prime minster and his various fingerlings so desperate to postpone a referendum? Surely not because they lack faith in the Union and their ability to convert people to that view (aka being gutless)? The best you lot could manage in 5 years is being beaten by a landslide in a referendum, a distant second in Scotland by the 'we hate Brexit & BJ>we love Brexit & BJ' party, and 18 polls in a row supporting indy. What are you expecting to turn up?
I have said on many occasions I do not object to to indy2 sometime in the next few years and I do expect the union to win whenever it is held
What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Tier announcement: BBC was suggesting quite patchy application of T4 this morning, Northants, Leics, Hartlepool, East Lancs.
I'll be looking out for:
T3 everywhere or more limited e.g. Mersey, W. Country? Alteration of tiers to restrict kids activities (e.g. ballet classes) in high tiers? Other T4 possibles: York, N. Cumbria, Stockport & Trafford and how big a buffer is given.
What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Hoping it’s just a PR cock-up, rather than they are starting at zero doses today.
What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Told you not to place your faith in the University of Oxford.
Even in Nov, they promised 4 million by end of the year, down from 30 million.
The timetable for delivery of the Oxford University/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine candidate has slipped, the UK's vaccine chief said, adding Britain will receive just 4 million doses of the shot this year.
What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Told you not to place your faith in the University of Oxford.
The Hull vaccine will be riding to the rescue shortly.
I used the ONS weekly death figures for this. Red is death by Covid, Amber is Deaths above the 5 year average, blue is the latter less the former (Average less Covid)
So we are in negative territory for deaths not by Covid, compared to a normal year... Is the gap between the blue and the amber the people who probably would have died anyway? Early on people were dying of Covid but it wasn't on the certificate?
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
I've just had my jab at my local surgery. I'm in the 75-79 age cohort. My surgery intends to do 3,000 vaccinations of this cohort today. Their organisation is impressive. It includes sitting with a cup of tea for 15 minutes after the jab to make sure you don't keel over. I didn't keel over.
Thanks @Stocky, @MattW and others. This has been a very interesting and informative discussion for me.
Not a lawyer, but do a fair bit of high value negotiating. My tip would be get a ballpark price from the vendor before even suggesting a price of one's own.
I always get the impression that him being on fire would be the only thing that may give you pause in this activity.
Social distancing would make this a feat worth seeing.
Isabella, Duchess of York, gave birth to a son when her husband had not been within ten miles of her for over four years.
He must have had truly awesome powers of ejaculation and aim.
Perhaps he used a turkey baster?
I miss Sunset Beach.
One of my all time fav programmes. Absolutely ridiculous
Annie mmmm
Was a staple of my student days.
I used to watch it in the mornings before starting work in the bookies for Evening Racing. 1997 I guess. The couple that talked over the closing credits were funny, and the Vicar was the best looking bloke in it! Turned out to be all Meg's dream didnt it?
Would it be easier to name the places not in Tier 4?
When Tier 4 was first announced there was a map showing the worst places for it, and I live bang in the middle! Border of Essex, Kent and London. Hooray!
What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Told you not to place your faith in the University of Oxford.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
We already know the asymptomatic can spread it.
The vaccine might make you an asymptomatic spreader, we don't know that yet it is too early to tell. But the JCVI clearly believe it will reduce spread which is why it is prioritising NHS staff and Care staff.
Yes but if you are infected with no symptoms you are still infected. And I thought the trials proved that the vaccine reduces the chance of being infected.
So, if the trials do NOT prove it also reduces the chance of you spreading the virus, the inference is that people might be able to spread the virus even when not infected by it, symptoms or not.
See what I mean?
You've reached a nonsense conclusion on the basis of a misunderstanding that's already been explained to you. The trials did not show people were not infected. Only that they didn't have symptoms.
Harsh! I posed a logical question based on my misunderstanding of the trials MO and you kindly answered it and in the process cleared up my misunderstanding. But I hadn't seen your answer when I wrote this follow-up.
Perhaps I've exceeded my pb.com quota for the day. Back to the sock knitting...
Well you can do so with the satisfaction of having cleared up a pesky little thing that has been gently bugging me for days. I could have googled, I suppose, but it's not my way. I like to construct my understanding of the world using pure intuition & logic and an absolute minimum of "real world" data.
It's great for me too in Tier 3 West Yorkshire. Have 3 weeks off after tomorrow as I'm starting a new job mid January so I'm planning on doing some non-essential retail to pass the time.
Would it be easier to name the places not in Tier 4?
When Tier 4 was first announced there was a map showing the worst places for it, and I live bang in the middle! Border of Essex, Kent and London. Hooray!
Would it be easier to name the places not in Tier 4?
When Tier 4 was first announced there was a map showing the worst places for it, and I live bang in the middle! Border of Essex, Kent and London. Hooray!
Eerily appropriate that the location is near Grave send.
Can you get an area TPO on the whole thing before your conversation, such that it will make it a little less attractive as potential development? You need to get a Tree Officer to recognise "public amenity", which also means things like "attractive viewed from a public highway".
(That would be somewhat below the belt, mind, and bind you in future).
The TPO system is a bit perverse, in that if everyone in a road removes their trees, then the poor sod left gets the TPO requiring them to provide public benefit at their own expense, and the garden drenched in shade.
Comments
I've already written to them about the different aggregations for age related data.....
Actually, I would prefer a pause until Easter, finish the Leagues with a gap for the Euros, and end the season in the Autumn, allowing a break before the world Cup.
When Boris said in his press conference we have frictionless trade with the EU, the cake and eat it, he quite simply lied. And it’s not just extra administration and bureaucracy placed on British business (and from there on all of us) he’s lying about - heres the kicker, we have achieved absolutely nothing in return for becoming poorer. Under terms of Boris deal we can’t diverge from the EU ratchet clause and enjoy any freedom without an argument and the EU slapping tariffs on us. ERG, who Starmer joined in the lobby today, actually want that outcome.
But it’s not a Tory Brexit anymore. Starmer has killed that idea off today too.
Labour have never been led by anyone as stupid as Starmer and the cronies around him.
He must have had truly awesome powers of ejaculation and aim.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1344295668698017793
I miss Sunset Beach.
Gove, Gove will tear the SNP apart ... again.
Now. About Tiers, schools, pandemic, universities, the economy, hospital capacity, etc.,etc..
https://twitter.com/RaoulRuparel/status/1344296652685848577?s=20
https://twitter.com/RaoulRuparel/status/1344296654996910083?s=20
https://twitter.com/RaoulRuparel/status/1344296657010257923?s=20
Brace for Level Tier 42.
https://wellcomecollection.org/works/cknfahz4
Annie mmmm
It is a marketplace of one buyer and one seller, so considerations such as "fair market price" are peripheral at best. It is worth what you will buy it for and the Great Estate will sell it for, nothing else.
You need to put yourself in their head and do a cost benefit from their point of view.
I would punt that they have let it for a relative peppercorn because it saves them having to spend some time and £200-£500 a year + admin managing it.
I would say it may add value to your house, but perhaps only 1-3%, for the correct buyer. If your street is all samey then it is an advantage.
Planning: the content of the rental agreement is private, and therefore not a Relevant Planning Matter; they could claim it was an elephant for all it matters. Though long term proven usage as a garden may give you a right to do so by prescription if no one has attempted to enforce. You would need I think 10 years proven use. Perhaps buy it with "can't be sure it is garden" as your argument, then serve your proof on the Council later. Though the GE surely know their planning stuff.
Stuff that matters is whether it is a small awkward parcel that makes one of their fields square, whether they think *they* can develop it in the next hundred years, whether the transaction is big enough to be worth the bother etc. They could use it eg as part of the compulsory 10% open space in a medium sized estate to allow more houses on the flat bit, or as a quid pro quo to make another development acceptable (which was what Sarah Beeny did).
Don't forget that in a couple of years they may be able to gain an income from "public funds for public goods" by turning it into a wildlife meadow or a copse.
I would say that anything under 20k will not be worth the hassle for them, so perhaps start with 20k + an overage clause, and willing to go to double or treble that, and paying costs. Expect maybe 2k to 5k costs if you have a custom agreement. You could even offer a preemptive right ro repurchase at double plus land inflation.
Can you get some neighbours to make parallel offers, to make it a bigger deal?
On the parcel, you either have the buggeration of combining now, or of combining them when you sell. I would do it now, as time is of the essence when selling.
There is a sweet spot for you in that Stamp Duty does not apply (I think) on transactions under 40k.
Doesn't the Salisbury-Addison Convention mean they shouldn't oppose or delay it since getting a trade deal (if one could be negotiated) was in the Manifesto?
This new mutant virus knows better than to attack people from Yorkshire because we're hard as nails.
I'll be looking out for:
T3 everywhere or more limited e.g. Mersey, W. Country?
Alteration of tiers to restrict kids activities (e.g. ballet classes) in high tiers?
Other T4 possibles: York, N. Cumbria, Stockport & Trafford and how big a buffer is given.
And fireplace to follow
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1344297998659055617?s=20
And Tier Two is...nowhere
The timetable for delivery of the Oxford University/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine candidate has slipped, the UK's vaccine chief said, adding Britain will receive just 4 million doses of the shot this year.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-astrazenec/delivery-timetable-for-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-slips-uk-official-says-idUKKBN27K2GU
So we are in negative territory for deaths not by Covid, compared to a normal year...
Is the gap between the blue and the amber the people who probably would have died anyway? Early on people were dying of Covid but it wasn't on the certificate?
530,000 available in the first week in January and the NHS are expanding the scale of its operation
So not 530,000 only until February
Hancock just quoted that number as available for first week of January.
The 530,000 figure is for the first week in January
It is still an order of magnitude less than what AZN promised in November.
😇
Can you get an area TPO on the whole thing before your conversation, such that it will make it a little less attractive as potential development? You need to get a Tree Officer to recognise "public amenity", which also means things like "attractive viewed from a public highway".
(That would be somewhat below the belt, mind, and bind you in future).
The TPO system is a bit perverse, in that if everyone in a road removes their trees, then the poor sod left gets the TPO requiring them to provide public benefit at their own expense, and the garden drenched in shade.