50% coverage in the worst case should be enough, shouldn't it?
It is almost certainly a lot better than that. The two Pfizer doses were only three weeks apart, and it takes a good two weeks for the initial immune response fully to ramp up.
It’s controversial, as scientists dislike deviating from established protocols, but there are not a few respected US epidemiologists who also support the idea.
It’s certainly a roll of the dice- and again, we will effectively be running a large scale trial for the benefit of the rest of the world.
Where ever that Tier 3 in a sea of Tier 4 in the Midlands, I bet they are really going to appreciate loads of rule breakers popping in to use the shops etc.
It would appear that we are adopting a vaccination strategy that delivers 70% efficacy rather than one that delivers 90% efficacy but takes longer to implement.
I can understand why for the large scale benefits but for the individual punter it is a bit of a bugger.
The question is how many people will return to normal life after they are jabbed. I suspect not as many under the new strategy.
Williamson has actually managed to make it worse, which is quite something.
Nothing on the DfE website about schools in areas of high restriction.
Bloody idiot.
It’s blatantly obvious the government has no regard whatsoever for the health and safety of teachers.
Or to be honest of parents with kids at school. Even if they are testing every kid every week there is still a route for rapid infection from one family to another (or to many others). Given how infectious this new strain is supposed to be I am deeply unhappy about sending my son back to school.
For me personally it helps that he thrived in the first lockdown and even the teachers noticed a massive improvement in his work after he went back. So I have no fears for his education suffering. Of course that informs my views a great deal and I understand it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone.
Obviously it’s a policy call, and there are pros and cons. What is unconscionable is that government has provided no hard evidence to support their assertions, and appears to have made no effort to attain any.
And the Education department has been singularly unhelpful along the way.
In defence of Toby Young (not someone I know, or read anything by, or have any particular desire to defend), I was a bit puzzled by the furore over his 'faked' picture of an empty ICU ward I saw on here yesterday. I thought it was a pretty automatic assumption that he'd used a stock image of an empty ICU ward to illustrate his blog (PB style), as opposed to him actually claiming he'd gone undercover in the NHS and the image was some sort of scoop.
Of course there are empty ICU beds. That is because of surge planning, such as the use of operating theatres and staff as ICU. It doesn't mean that they were sitting idle drinking coffee. See this thread.
Nobody ever accused anybody of sitting around drinking coffee, for the record.
I can see how in this pandemic winter hospitals would want a bigger margin for error than in ordinary flu years, and would want also want more ICU 'surge' capacity than in previous years.
A random snapshot of English hospitals at 82% ICU capacity now versus (say) 85% capacity in previous years doesn't necessarily tell the whole story, therefore
That said, such numbers do suggest some of what we hear from government, health service and media is hysteria. Things are mostly well in hand.
Haven't you got to think about staffing capacity rather than beds? The number of beds is (relatively) easy to increase (see Nightingales); the number of staff nigh on impossible to increase in the short term.
Spare beds which cannot be staffed = crisis.
Indeed. There are easily enough beds if you include the ones at the patient’s home, for example. Not much use without the staff and other equipment.
According to Norway the UK has a better deal than their EEA one and are seeking to open negotiations with the the EU to improve their arrangements in line with the UK- EU deal
Isn't it the Euoskeptic Center Party that's flying that kite? In other news I fear I have to enlighten you regarding Farage and his attitude to the EU.
We haven't heard any updates from you on the attitude of your fishing relatives from NE Scotland for a while. It would be great to get an on-the-ground report on reactions to BJ's great deal.
Why are you upset that Norway may be concerned the UK has a good deal
As for Farage I have comprehensively condemned him in my posts over years
It is a far better deal than the SNP plunging them back into the CFP and not to mention the 100 million support from HMG
You really, really do need to read up on SNP policy - which has always been unhappy with the CFP and sought to renegotiate it.
No need to renegotiate something when you are outside it and if you think the same EU coastal states will give up their access to UK waters to help the SNP you are in fairy land
Your party betraqyed the fisherfolk.
Your party has done it twice now.
Your party has taken us Scots outside the EU after promising in 2014 that voting no to indy was the only way to stay in the EU.
You are blaming someone else for all of this. Divert, distract, fail to take responsibiliuty for your glorious Brexit and your glorious Union.
I wouldn't dream of accusing you of being in fairy land because it would be such an insult at your age.
And Scotland will vote to stay in the union when and if indyref2 happens
As with the angry fishermen will you be advising those of us voting in that referendum to ignore the evidence of our eyes and ears and instead read a report from a Tory think tank?
The fishermen will not vote to go back to the EU and hand back fishing to Brussels and the CFP
They're saying they were better off in the CFP. Nice deflection though from both the betrayal and the sneering "have they read the IoG report"
That doesn't look good. (No sign of over 80s dropping off relative to others, that I can see, but it's really too early to expert to see much signal yet.)
I hope we never get to see what happens hospitals have to close their doors.
Where ever that Tier 3 in a sea of Tier 4 in the Midlands, I bet they are really going to appreciate loads of rule breakers popping in to use the shops etc.
Plus all the Smoggies heading down to North Yorkshire. Northallerton will be mobbed, although I don't think that the country clothing range available in Barkers is what most lads from Boro will be after.
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.
Gosh @MattW that`s a great post - I don`t know where to start. (And @Gallowgate for your continued interest.)
A few things:
You ask "Can you get an area TPO on the whole thing before you conversation, such that it will make it a little less attractive as potential development?" My garden is in a conservation area. The land in question is just the other side of the conservation area boundary. There are fruit trees and a few conifers on the land. I don`t think a TPO is relevant.
The current rent that I pay to the Estate is £600 pa and this tends to rise with inflation. So not a peppercorn. Basically, I`ve been paying for the privilege of cutting the grass and the boundary hedges!
DavidL suggested 5 x this and I said that, knowing the Estate, they would not accept less than 25x. Your comments of £20k plus (plus costs) makes sense to me (getting into their head, as you say). The way I look at it is that I am committed to £600 plus inflation each year. I know I`m not really committed - but I am in reality because the land connects to my garden and I feel that it is essential to protect my outlook. (The land does not connect to anyone else`s garden.) Put simply, I wouldn`t want anyone else to rent it or own it. We have no plans to move ever so regarding this as a £600 pa plus inflation commitment leads me to think that paying, say, £30k one-off to extinguish this annual commitment is a good deal for me regardless of the value it may put on my house.
What would make it much less attractive to me is if they do like they usually do and impose restrictive covenants. I would want to have the scope of erecting a treehouse and possibly a greenhouse which the covenants usually prohibit. Mainly I would use it as a wildflower meadow and plant additional trees. it would be an environmental project for me. "Public funds for public goods" would, I think, imply public access, which would not be relevant in this case.
You say "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". Yes, it is an awkward parcel and is on a gradient so severe that I have to take it diagonally with my ride-on mower. It is of no use to a farmer or horse owner and could never be developed.
Regarding combining parcels of land, wouldn`t ot be better to keep them separate to give any prospective future buyer of our house the option of having a smaller garden or a really big one?
You can definitely used to get grants to plant trees regardless of public access. 1/3 acre might be a bit small though. There also used to be stewardship schemes although it isn't clear what these are going to be replaced with yet.
What is the soil type? Is there any interesting botany? Planting trees isn't always the best thing to do.
Loam/Sandy soil. I was going to plant a copse of silver birch, a UK native which is excellent for wildlife and will reference others in the area. Wildflower meadow in a chunk of the rest. No interesting botany as far as I am aware. I`m open to suggestions, though must be UK native planting. Anything to help bees and moths and other insects gets a thumbs up from me.
I misread that, and was wondering whose corpse you were planning to plant.
Might be worth looking at the Bumblebee Conservation Trust website for ideas. Ditto Woodland Trust. Of course, you may already have done so.
In the full,knowledge I will regret asking this:
Why do you want to turn the Bumblebee Conservation Trust and Woodland Trust into corpses and bury them?
Sorry - was mentally replying to the OP @Stocky. My apologies. I actually support both charities!
Very grim press conference. "The NHS has still not seen the impact of infections that will have occurred due to mixing at Christmas."
Yep. Loath to quote HIM but this time there really is a Hard Rain cumming.
Batten down the hatches. Sniff the air in March.
Funnily, from what I have read there did not seem to be a rise in US or Canadian cases after the Thanksgiving holiday 5 weeks ago. Has anyone read news to the contrary?
Am I right in thinking the line on inoculations is now to give as many people as possible the first injection from whatever vaccine they have because the efficacy of the first injection alone is sufficient and perhaps only offer a second injection to the especially vulnerable?
No. Everyone should get Jab 2 - it provides greater longer term protection.
Just they won't get it within 3/4 weeks of the first, but within 12 weeks.
So the trade off is part protection for more people versus complete protection for fewer people.
Okay. I think that will need explaining - most people I've spoken to think they are only safe a week after the second inoculation. In the period between inoculations, will people still be at risk in terms of needing to maintain the same level of precaution they were taking before their first injection?
Dr. G.E. Ghali, of LSU Health Shreveport, told The Advocate that Letlow didn’t have any underlying health conditions that would have placed him at greater risk of developing complications from COVID-19.
Now the Brexit deal is confirmed, there is no possible justification for Johnson to persevere with his spectacularly useless, nodding dog, cabinet. Even among the current massed ranks of dull, dim-witted, disingenuous Tory MPs, there must be better than the current crop of ministers.
There's some real diamonds in the current cabinet - it's an infinitely better cabinet than May's, but definitely some rough too.
If it was up to me keep Sunak, Patel, Hancock and Truss who are very good at their current briefs.
Oust Williamson never to see him again would be too soon.
"Germany recorded more than 1,000 coronavirus-related deaths in one day for the first time on Wednesday, days after it started vaccinating people and as an extension of a lockdown looms.
The number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the country rose by 22,459 to 1,687,185, data from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) for infectious diseases showed.
The reported death toll increased by 1,129 to 32,107."
Damn that is bad. It was countries like Germany that gave us hope there was a right way to do this.
Do people think this is primarily because they have been caught out by the new, more infectious, virus strain or have they slipped up somewhere from their previous tight controls?
They were slow to lock down properly, and people got complacent after getting off lightly in the first wave.
And I think the less severe first wave was mostly due to the virus just not having spread as much when everyone locked down towards the end of March, rather than test&trace or anything else. That effect looks even more pronounced in eastern Europe.
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.
Gosh @MattW that`s a great post - I don`t know where to start. (And @Gallowgate for your continued interest.)
A few things:
You ask "Can you get an area TPO on the whole thing before you conversation, such that it will make it a little less attractive as potential development?" My garden is in a conservation area. The land in question is just the other side of the conservation area boundary. There are fruit trees and a few conifers on the land. I don`t think a TPO is relevant.
The current rent that I pay to the Estate is £600 pa and this tends to rise with inflation. So not a peppercorn. Basically, I`ve been paying for the privilege of cutting the grass and the boundary hedges!
DavidL suggested 5 x this and I said that, knowing the Estate, they would not accept less than 25x. Your comments of £20k plus (plus costs) makes sense to me (getting into their head, as you say). The way I look at it is that I am committed to £600 plus inflation each year. I know I`m not really committed - but I am in reality because the land connects to my garden and I feel that it is essential to protect my outlook. (The land does not connect to anyone else`s garden.) Put simply, I wouldn`t want anyone else to rent it or own it. We have no plans to move ever so regarding this as a £600 pa plus inflation commitment leads me to think that paying, say, £30k one-off to extinguish this annual commitment is a good deal for me regardless of the value it may put on my house.
What would make it much less attractive to me is if they do like they usually do and impose restrictive covenants. I would want to have the scope of erecting a treehouse and possibly a greenhouse which the covenants usually prohibit. Mainly I would use it as a wildflower meadow and plant additional trees. it would be an environmental project for me. "Public funds for public goods" would, I think, imply public access, which would not be relevant in this case.
You say "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". Yes, it is an awkward parcel and is on a gradient so severe that I have to take it diagonally with my ride-on mower. It is of no use to a farmer or horse owner and could never be developed.
Regarding combining parcels of land, wouldn`t ot be better to keep them separate to give any prospective future buyer of our house the option of having a smaller garden or a really big one?
Yes, with rent at that level it becomes a financial proposition, and 20-25 times the annual rent sounds about right. The point that the land only has value if there is demand for it would apply only if you were willing to walk away from renting it and no-one else was interested.
Is there an alternative of continuing to rent but under a long lease? That wouldn't change the finances, and avoid a lot of the admin, whilst giving you security to do your environmental and larking about in the trees stuff?
Talk to people like your County Wildlife Trust, and the Million Ponds project, and have a read of eg "My Wilderness In Bloom" by Phil Drabble (bigger scale but fun). Then get your ideas in order and have a chat to your great estate Land Manager.
If they can see a genuine long term interest on your part, and potential to not-be-worse-off themselves then imo they should play ball, as it will meet their Trust goals and make life simpler.
The closest thing we have to a great estate we have on PB is @Charles, so lets see what he thinks :-).
IMO put a small lake there, and treat it as a small woodland, and a resource eg for your local Primary to do outdoor education maybe, and your own extended family and maybe neighbours to do fun and bonfire night (you will have lots of brash to dispose of) .
My parents bought a run down 2-year-empty small manor house when I was about 10 in the 70s for not much more than the cost of a 4 bed detached and stayed there for 40 years. Dad vowed he would never leave, and he never did. We sold up after he died.
If you can make it add up do so, and enjoy for a long time.
One of my favourite quotes is from Lord Morris of Castle Morris, the former Labour Front Bencher in the Lords, who wrote in his Diary Column in the Church Times around 1990 that he had "bought a small manor house in Derbyshire to decline and due in".
And he did. It was Foolow Manor. Matthew Parris did something similar wlsewhere.
Last I heard (from an acquaintance who was Deputy Duck Warden in Foolow at that time under his wife as Chief Duck Warden) is that Lady Morris was still there.
Comments
The two Pfizer doses were only three weeks apart, and it takes a good two weeks for the initial immune response fully to ramp up.
It’s controversial, as scientists dislike deviating from established protocols, but there are not a few respected US epidemiologists who also support the idea.
It’s certainly a roll of the dice- and again, we will effectively be running a large scale trial for the benefit of the rest of the world.
--AS
I can understand why for the large scale benefits but for the individual punter it is a bit of a bugger.
The question is how many people will return to normal life after they are jabbed. I suspect not as many under the new strategy.
What is unconscionable is that government has provided no hard evidence to support their assertions, and appears to have made no effort to attain any.
And the Education department has been singularly unhelpful along the way.
NEW THREAD
Or children, for the matter of that.
https://twitter.com/ZoeParamour/status/1344338648762884102?s=19
I hope we never get to see what happens hospitals have to close their doors.
--AS
https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1344308841278828545
The BBC admitted 'no evidence' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55363256
which sadly, coming from the BBC in 2020, means 'we really looked for it, but no ... nothing'.
Okay. I think that will need explaining - most people I've spoken to think they are only safe a week after the second inoculation. In the period between inoculations, will people still be at risk in terms of needing to maintain the same level of precaution they were taking before their first injection?
Presumably they have been manufacturing these flat out since the summer in the hope/expectation that they would be approved?
Could someone at AstraZenaca just let us know the precise position?
https://apnews.com/article/louisiana-coronavirus-pandemic-shreveport-bd0de82f39d856ef262f81fd66dec1d8
If it was up to me keep Sunak, Patel, Hancock and Truss who are very good at their current briefs.
Oust Williamson never to see him again would be too soon.
And I think the less severe first wave was mostly due to the virus just not having spread as much when everyone locked down towards the end of March, rather than test&trace or anything else. That effect looks even more pronounced in eastern Europe.
If they can see a genuine long term interest on your part, and potential to not-be-worse-off themselves then imo they should play ball, as it will meet their Trust goals and make life simpler.
The closest thing we have to a great estate we have on PB is @Charles, so lets see what he thinks :-).
IMO put a small lake there, and treat it as a small woodland, and a resource eg for your local Primary to do outdoor education maybe, and your own extended family and maybe neighbours to do fun and bonfire night (you will have lots of brash to dispose of) .
My parents bought a run down 2-year-empty small manor house when I was about 10 in the 70s for not much more than the cost of a 4 bed detached and stayed there for 40 years. Dad vowed he would never leave, and he never did. We sold up after he died.
If you can make it add up do so, and enjoy for a long time.
One of my favourite quotes is from Lord Morris of Castle Morris, the former Labour Front Bencher in the Lords, who wrote in his Diary Column in the Church Times around 1990 that he had "bought a small manor house in Derbyshire to decline and due in".
And he did. It was Foolow Manor. Matthew Parris did something similar wlsewhere.
Last I heard (from an acquaintance who was Deputy Duck Warden in Foolow at that time under his wife as Chief Duck Warden) is that Lady Morris was still there.