I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
I don't dislike Boris personally, but really the weekend interview where he rambled about quite possibly introducing unspecified stricter measures in parts of the country in a few weeks' time showed him at his very worst. This sort of vacillation actually encourages people to get out and enjoy relative freedom while it lasts, which is exactly the wrong message. We don't need to be gently eased into restrictions like 5-year-olds. Get on with with it!
I am no Boris fan and I think lots of his positions are purely playing to gallery, but I think when it comes to lockdown it is something he genuinely finds goes against his beliefs. All polling says he would get loads of credit for strict lockdown measures, he has loads of political cover, it is advantageous for his premiership to do it, but he clearly finds it nearly impossible to do.
We know he will get there eventually, its a matter of how long and then how many days after he announces it, that the new measures come in. It really should have been announced Saturday, for today.
But if that's the reason I don't think it paints Johnson in any better light. There are no mainstream politicians in any party who relish the notion of closing schools and stopping people doing things like seeing their friends and family. From what I glean, the virus situation and short term prognosis is dire and there is not a shadow of a doubt that we will soon be in a Tier 5+ national lockdown which will last for many weeks.
I am no doubt seething with anti BJ prejudice, but I think his deep unwillingness to front up bad news is more of a factor than any problems with his beliefs (whatever they might be). Very unChurchillian.
And it's a shame. Through gritted synapses I recognize that he is gifted with an ability to reach people. He could deliver the "At this time of great peril for our nation we must make a supreme national effort" speech that imo is required. But no. Cometh the Hour flunketh the Man. So far anyway. Maybe this evening or tomorrow. Or Wednesday.
Yep, in the karaoke Beatles stakes, BJ could probably manage a Love Me Do, but Let It Be way beyond him.
Q, if Churchill had not given his 'Blood, toil, tears and sweat' & 'We shall fight on the beaches' speeches, would it have made a material difference to the outcome of the war?
A prediction - when the numbers come out this week, the COVID deniers will use the argument that since the case numbers are below the peak of the 29th (Caused by Christmas Effect), there is no problem.
My brother firmly belongs to this Covid denier group. He is constantly posting on Facebook about how all restrictions should be ended, and posting either false or misleading statistics about how it really isn't that bad.
He completely misses the point that many statistics aren't being submitted at the moment, and the fact that these deaths and hospitalisations are WITH current restrictions, no doubt assuming they'd somehow would stay the same if everyone was just 'let out' again.
He's mostly lost it, but that's what watching crap videos on YouTube will do to you.
I didn't realise you were Jeremy Corbyn, welcome to pb.
362. I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold. I also accept that there is a strong public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations and that this is an important factor to have in mind. However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
Since the District Judge found for the USA on most of the points of law - tricky to see how they can appeal this.
So, he voluntarily imprisoned himself in a small apartment for seven years, which made him go mad. And now he’s mad, he’s unfit to be deported to stand trial?
Did I get that right?
Well, whether he is the cause of his mental state or not (he absolutely is) if that is his state such as to prevent it being reasonable to deport him, it is what it is.
362. I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold. I also accept that there is a strong public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations and that this is an important factor to have in mind. However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
Since the District Judge found for the USA on most of the points of law - tricky to see how they can appeal this.
So, he voluntarily imprisoned himself in a small apartment for seven years, which made him go mad. And now he’s mad, he’s unfit to be deported to stand trial?
Did I get that right?
Yep...
I have heard it mooted that as a result of legal precedents around autistic people and rule breaking, that it is only a matter of time before someone is sued *for hiring* an autistic person who proceeds to break rules. The reasoning being
- A number of judgements that autistic people are predisposed to break rules/hack - A number of judgements that punishment would harm them. - Therefore hiring them broke the duty of care to protect information etc.... - This would "break through" anti-discrimination legislation, since there would be a reason for discriminating against them in employment.
It would be sad, stupid and ironic, if this happens.
I am quite sure that if this has been mooted, that quiet discrimination is already occurring.
Would the nightingale hospitals by any good as vaccination centres? At least people could have a lie down and a cup of tea if they come over queasy.
Depends if they have to use them as hospitals. Don't really want to mix the two.
My father (late 80s) has been invited today. Local football stadium.
It would seem like the Excel centre should be used as one even if it didn't have a Nightingale in it - it has excellent transport links and is huge. Processing people would be easy. It also somewhat saves the Nightingale project, though of course that is very low down the list of priorities. Aren't there too few vaccination centres in London at present?
Or if you want to keep them open do the simple things most other countries do. Demand negative PCR tests within 48 hours of boarding. Test on arrival. Mandatory hotel quarantine. Its been known since the Black Death that disease moves with people.
I would have bolstered the cabinet by having Hunt as the caretaker Health Sec (non Covid) and leaving Hancock as the Covid secretary a long time ago. Would have been better to have him in the tent pissing out.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
Brexit isn't going to disappoint in material matters. It can't. Unless another useless money pit is invented to spew money into (there's Covid, but everywhere has that). Looking for it and hoping that it will is going to result in a lot of angst and disappointment for you - I seriously wouldn't bother.
The Thin Deal is expected to cost us significant GDP whereas Brexit was sold as a nice little earner. So that's quite a gap to cover up with smoke & mirrors. I agree it's unlikely that millions of Leavers will be crying foul but there might well be something insidious.
I would have bolstered the cabinet by having Hunt as the caretaker Health Sec (non Covid) and leaving Hancock as the Covid secretary a long time ago. Would have been better to have him in the tent pissing out.
Opposite way around. Hunt should have been called into the tent to concentrate on COVID / vaccines.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
People hate to admit that they were wrong. Weirdly, I think this is particularly true when they have been lied to. So for a long time I suspect that the anti-Brexit message will fall on deaf ears, and will put people's backs up. On the other hand, they are not going to hear the message if nobody is making it. You are right that the trend in many of these seats is against Labour anyway - eg mining seats are transforming from industrial to rural areas - with plenty of newcomers including some white flight from Northern cities who are not going to be Labour voters. Labour doesn't need to win all of these seats, and won't even in a landslide win.
Then we get back to Starmer's approach; Brexit has been done, there's no debate, use the mechanisms in Boris's terrible deal to make it work better for people. (Whisper it, but that's going to mean closer engagement with the EU as it is, and acknowledging that whilst the sovereignty of the UK and EU are of equal type and status, they are not of equal mass.)
In the meantime, think tanks can think, and fringe politicians can keep the flame alive. Not dignified, and not much fun for the impatient, but it is the only way for now.
I think that is about right. I would add that every so often it would make sense to lob in a grenade whenever a particularly egregious Brexit development emerges. A kind of more in sorrow than anger approach - "unfortunately the government's arrogant and extreme approach to implementing Brexit has led to this..."; "I don't think this is the kind of Brexit people voted for"; "Brexit isn't working out like we were promised"; "Brexit isn't working". Just keep chipping away.
If hundreds of thousands of students are sitting around at home, going mad, why doesn’t HMG train them all up to be vaccinators?
They’re young, fit, smart, and the least likely to get ill. It will also allow them to socialise and flirt, at least a bit. So they don’t go mad. Win win.
I would have bolstered the cabinet by having Hunt as the caretaker Health Sec (non Covid) and leaving Hancock as the Covid secretary a long time ago. Would have been better to have him in the tent pissing out.
I disagree. It's a good thing that Hunt isn't bound by collective responsibility and can speak out and speak up. As Chair of the Health Committee he has a tremendous platform to hold the government to account from its own benches in a way nobody else really does. Not even the LOTO.
I agree with him here 100%. Hopefully the Government listens.
So that's Germany and the US previously critical of the policy probably set to introduce it. Good to see them make the same u turn I did, the maths is absolutely undeniable having done it this morning. Single jabs give 30-40% more coverage at 70% efficacy for a single jab, if it's as high as 90% as is being investigated then it really is a no brainer.
Online schooling seems to be working pretty well for my 17-year-old, so far. He's had two lessons this morning, and he reckons he is learning more and getting more work done at home than he would have done in school, notwithstanding a couple of technical glitches at the start. The only drawback is that he expects a cup of tea from me at break times. Hats off to his school and teachers for getting themselves organised at such short notice!
That's great, though I think LFH works better for middle class families with parents that WFH or working class immigrant families where education is a the major priority for children. For white working class families I can imagine the focus on education is much more lax outside of the school setting.
For example, for children of 1st generation immigrants, the immersion in English at school, as early as possible, is massive factor in acquiring good English skills.
Yes, absolutely. Even for my sister and I growing up in a multi-generational household where English wasn't spoken at home as the main language school was definitely the first place where we came into contact with English properly. From what I can tell it was also around that time that our household went from our own language first to English being primarily spoken at home. One of my earliest memories of if my grandfather speaking perfect Queen's English to my sister and I and being really confused that he could.
Please excuse the pedantry (and since we're on the subject of English), but that should be "... speaking perfect Queen's English to my sister and me" since the pronoun in question is part of the (indirect) object of the sentence, not the subject. That's one grammar mistake that, sadly, I know, always winds me up a little bit!
This used to trip me up until a friend put it like this: take the other person out and see whether it sounds right. In this case, it would become "speaking perfect Queen's English to I" or "speaking perfect Queen's English to me". Not hard to get it right when you do that.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
People hate to admit that they were wrong. Weirdly, I think this is particularly true when they have been lied to. So for a long time I suspect that the anti-Brexit message will fall on deaf ears, and will put people's backs up. On the other hand, they are not going to hear the message if nobody is making it. You are right that the trend in many of these seats is against Labour anyway - eg mining seats are transforming from industrial to rural areas - with plenty of newcomers including some white flight from Northern cities who are not going to be Labour voters. Labour doesn't need to win all of these seats, and won't even in a landslide win.
Then we get back to Starmer's approach; Brexit has been done, there's no debate, use the mechanisms in Boris's terrible deal to make it work better for people. (Whisper it, but that's going to mean closer engagement with the EU as it is, and acknowledging that whilst the sovereignty of the UK and EU are of equal type and status, they are not of equal mass.)
In the meantime, think tanks can think, and fringe politicians can keep the flame alive. Not dignified, and not much fun for the impatient, but it is the only way for now.
I think that is about right. I would add that every so often it would make sense to lob in a grenade whenever a particularly egregious Brexit development emerges. A kind of more in sorrow than anger approach - "unfortunately the government's arrogant and extreme approach to implementing Brexit has led to this..."; "I don't think this is the kind of Brexit people voted for"; "Brexit isn't working out like we were promised"; "Brexit isn't working". Just keep chipping away.
Give it a month before "STFU, you whining loser twats" becomes the popular response.
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
I don't dislike Boris personally, but really the weekend interview where he rambled about quite possibly introducing unspecified stricter measures in parts of the country in a few weeks' time showed him at his very worst. This sort of vacillation actually encourages people to get out and enjoy relative freedom while it lasts, which is exactly the wrong message. We don't need to be gently eased into restrictions like 5-year-olds. Get on with with it!
I am no Boris fan and I think lots of his positions are purely playing to gallery, but I think when it comes to lockdown it is something he genuinely finds goes against his beliefs. All polling says he would get loads of credit for strict lockdown measures, he has loads of political cover, it is advantageous for his premiership to do it, but he clearly finds it nearly impossible to do.
We know he will get there eventually, its a matter of how long and then how many days after he announces it, that the new measures come in. It really should have been announced Saturday, for today.
But if that's the reason I don't think it paints Johnson in any better light. There are no mainstream politicians in any party who relish the notion of closing schools and stopping people doing things like seeing their friends and family. From what I glean, the virus situation and short term prognosis is dire and there is not a shadow of a doubt that we will soon be in a Tier 5+ national lockdown which will last for many weeks.
I am no doubt seething with anti BJ prejudice, but I think his deep unwillingness to front up bad news is more of a factor than any problems with his beliefs (whatever they might be). Very unChurchillian.
And it's a shame. Through gritted synapses I recognize that he is gifted with an ability to reach people. He could deliver the "At this time of great peril for our nation we must make a supreme national effort" speech that imo is required. But no. Cometh the Hour flunketh the Man. So far anyway. Maybe this evening or tomorrow. Or Wednesday.
Indeed. As others have posted, as well as being gifted with the ability to reach people he's cursed with an almost pathetic desire to be liked. As a result he cannot cope with the idea of giving bad news.
I wonder how he managed to leave his various wives and other paramours? Or did they discover his peccadillos and leave him?
Yes, well I bet none of that was done face on with lantern jaw and steady gaze either.
Thinking about the prospects of the NHS overloading (which is very plausibly imminent), I had a quick and dirty look at the numbers involved.
At the moment, it looks like a little over 40,000 cases declared against specimen date seems to equate to about 3000 hospitalisations per day. Using Malmesbury's figures for proportion of hospitalisation per age category, the long-running percentage of hospitalisations that die (27.8% in a scarily reliable average during the second wave) and the figures for the proportion of each age band that make up the deaths, and assuming it will scale up as the declared cases scale up, you get this table:
All laden with assumptions, of course (such as: are we catching a constant fraction of the true cases in our reported cases?)
We can then assume that deaths per age band will rise if hospital assistance isn't available, towards the hospitalised numbers (This is a more fraught assumption. On the one hand, not all deaths from covid are in hospital. On the other, not everyone hospitalised would die without help, although we do know they were hospitalised for a reason. I'd suspect the number would go from around 100% of the hospitalised figures at the eldest end of the scale to a distinctly smaller fraction at the bottom - although I doubt it would ever go much below a quarter, given that around a sixth of those children hospitalised need ICU, and we'd assume everyone who needs intensive care is a goner without support. That would leave as many as 90% of hospitalised children who didn't need ICU recovering without any support, which would seem optimistic, so that would be a top end)
We can use a rough rule of thumb that 1500 hospitalisations per day can be reliably coped with (when they reach saturation), as under 1500 has seen hospital populations descending and over 1500 has seen them climbing. Rough rule of thumb.
Assume triage is done to prioritise the youngest. Count upwards on the hospitalisations numbers on the daily row until you get to 1500. Every row above that has deaths actually tending towards hospitalisation numbers rather than actual deaths. (Further source of error: this will not be uniform over the country. Some areas might need to triage down to a third or quarter; others may not need to triage at all)
Make whatever assumptions you see fit on vaccination numbers, counting down. If you assume all over 85s are protected, remove this row. All over 75s, do the same. And so on. (Not all will be protected - maybe around 70%, but we're talking rough rule of thumb)
The scary thing is - if we level out at 40,000 cases reported per day, AND somehow the hospitals don't oversaturate, we're still looking at around 25,000 deaths in January.
Remember that the deaths column on the table as it stands is on the assumption that the hospitals don't overload. The hospitalisations figure would show the absolute maximum if all hospitals turned everyone away (not happening).
Thanks for your number crunching. Absorbing if a tad worrying.
However, is 25,000 dead in January that ‘scary’. It sounds bad but we already know many thousands more are going to die of Covid, in the UK and across the world. And many of them will die in the worst month: January. Before the vaccines kick in.
Moreover, January is the worst months for deaths anyway, isn’t it? And 600,000 die in the UK in a ‘normal’ year.
What is truly scary is your downside prediction for January if the NHS crashes: 100,000 dead. That pushes towards a wartime scale of national trauma
So that's Germany and the US previously critical of the policy probably set to introduce it. Good to see them make the same u turn I did, the maths is absolutely undeniable having done it this morning. Single jabs give 30-40% more coverage at 70% efficacy for a single jab, if it's as high as 90% as is being investigated then it really is a no brainer.
NYT having a massive downer on UK policy....shocked, I tell you, absolutely shocked.
Thinking about the prospects of the NHS overloading (which is very plausibly imminent), I had a quick and dirty look at the numbers involved.
At the moment, it looks like a little over 40,000 cases declared against specimen date seems to equate to about 3000 hospitalisations per day. Using Malmesbury's figures for proportion of hospitalisation per age category, the long-running percentage of hospitalisations that die (27.8% in a scarily reliable average during the second wave) and the figures for the proportion of each age band that make up the deaths, and assuming it will scale up as the declared cases scale up, you get this table:
All laden with assumptions, of course (such as: are we catching a constant fraction of the true cases in our reported cases?)
We can then assume that deaths per age band will rise if hospital assistance isn't available, towards the hospitalised numbers (This is a more fraught assumption. On the one hand, not all deaths from covid are in hospital. On the other, not everyone hospitalised would die without help, although we do know they were hospitalised for a reason. I'd suspect the number would go from around 100% of the hospitalised figures at the eldest end of the scale to a distinctly smaller fraction at the bottom - although I doubt it would ever go much below a quarter, given that around a sixth of those children hospitalised need ICU, and we'd assume everyone who needs intensive care is a goner without support. That would leave as many as 90% of hospitalised children who didn't need ICU recovering without any support, which would seem optimistic, so that would be a top end)
We can use a rough rule of thumb that 1500 hospitalisations per day can be reliably coped with (when they reach saturation), as under 1500 has seen hospital populations descending and over 1500 has seen them climbing. Rough rule of thumb.
Assume triage is done to prioritise the youngest. Count upwards on the hospitalisations numbers on the daily row until you get to 1500. Every row above that has deaths actually tending towards hospitalisation numbers rather than actual deaths. (Further source of error: this will not be uniform over the country. Some areas might need to triage down to a third or quarter; others may not need to triage at all)
Make whatever assumptions you see fit on vaccination numbers, counting down. If you assume all over 85s are protected, remove this row. All over 75s, do the same. And so on. (Not all will be protected - maybe around 70%, but we're talking rough rule of thumb)
The scary thing is - if we level out at 40,000 cases reported per day, AND somehow the hospitals don't oversaturate, we're still looking at around 25,000 deaths in January.
Remember that the deaths column on the table as it stands is on the assumption that the hospitals don't overload. The hospitalisations figure would show the absolute maximum if all hospitals turned everyone away (not happening).
Foxy pointed out yesterday that the percentage of deaths (from German data) has dropped considerably.
I used data for the whole pandemic, from the ONS England data, to construct the table.
Online schooling seems to be working pretty well for my 17-year-old, so far. He's had two lessons this morning, and he reckons he is learning more and getting more work done at home than he would have done in school, notwithstanding a couple of technical glitches at the start. The only drawback is that he expects a cup of tea from me at break times. Hats off to his school and teachers for getting themselves organised at such short notice!
That's great, though I think LFH works better for middle class families with parents that WFH or working class immigrant families where education is a the major priority for children. For white working class families I can imagine the focus on education is much more lax outside of the school setting.
For example, for children of 1st generation immigrants, the immersion in English at school, as early as possible, is massive factor in acquiring good English skills.
Yes, absolutely. Even for my sister and I growing up in a multi-generational household where English wasn't spoken at home as the main language school was definitely the first place where we came into contact with English properly. From what I can tell it was also around that time that our household went from our own language first to English being primarily spoken at home. One of my earliest memories of if my grandfather speaking perfect Queen's English to my sister and I and being really confused that he could.
Please excuse the pedantry (and since we're on the subject of English), but that should be "... speaking perfect Queen's English to my sister and me" since the pronoun in question is part of the (indirect) object of the sentence, not the subject. That's one grammar mistake that, sadly, I know, always winds me up a little bit!
This used to trip me up until a friend put it like this: take the other person out and see whether it sounds right. In this case, it would become "speaking perfect Queen's English to I" or "speaking perfect Queen's English to me". Not hard to get it right when you do that.
Well, you know what they say: accidence will happen...
If hundreds of thousands of students are sitting around at home, going mad, why doesn’t HMG train them all up to be vaccinators?
They’re young, fit, smart, and the least likely to get ill. It will also allow them to socialise and flirt, at least a bit. So they don’t go mad. Win win.
"Gosh you have SUCH a large bicep. I can't miss!"
This sort of thing?
I rather think that the students would be more interested in each other than the sort of people being targeted for immunization for the first several weeks.
Germany is seeking advice on whether to delay giving the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to make supplies go further, in a similar move to the UK, according to a document seen by the Reuters news agency.
The country's health ministry has asked an independent vaccination commission for its opinion on administering the second shot later than 42 days after the first.
So it's taken what, less than a week? To go from "the Brits are crazy" to the US and Germany following suit.
I don't think it has been mention in the NYT - but part of the vaccine supply problem in the US is that half the supply is being held back for second doses. Because of legal fears that if you don't have the second dose available for the second appointment, on the dot, you will be sued to oblivion.
Thinking about the prospects of the NHS overloading (which is very plausibly imminent), I had a quick and dirty look at the numbers involved.
At the moment, it looks like a little over 40,000 cases declared against specimen date seems to equate to about 3000 hospitalisations per day. Using Malmesbury's figures for proportion of hospitalisation per age category, the long-running percentage of hospitalisations that die (27.8% in a scarily reliable average during the second wave) and the figures for the proportion of each age band that make up the deaths, and assuming it will scale up as the declared cases scale up, you get this table:
All laden with assumptions, of course (such as: are we catching a constant fraction of the true cases in our reported cases?)
We can then assume that deaths per age band will rise if hospital assistance isn't available, towards the hospitalised numbers (This is a more fraught assumption. On the one hand, not all deaths from covid are in hospital. On the other, not everyone hospitalised would die without help, although we do know they were hospitalised for a reason. I'd suspect the number would go from around 100% of the hospitalised figures at the eldest end of the scale to a distinctly smaller fraction at the bottom - although I doubt it would ever go much below a quarter, given that around a sixth of those children hospitalised need ICU, and we'd assume everyone who needs intensive care is a goner without support. That would leave as many as 90% of hospitalised children who didn't need ICU recovering without any support, which would seem optimistic, so that would be a top end)
We can use a rough rule of thumb that 1500 hospitalisations per day can be reliably coped with (when they reach saturation), as under 1500 has seen hospital populations descending and over 1500 has seen them climbing. Rough rule of thumb.
Assume triage is done to prioritise the youngest. Count upwards on the hospitalisations numbers on the daily row until you get to 1500. Every row above that has deaths actually tending towards hospitalisation numbers rather than actual deaths. (Further source of error: this will not be uniform over the country. Some areas might need to triage down to a third or quarter; others may not need to triage at all)
Make whatever assumptions you see fit on vaccination numbers, counting down. If you assume all over 85s are protected, remove this row. All over 75s, do the same. And so on. (Not all will be protected - maybe around 70%, but we're talking rough rule of thumb)
The scary thing is - if we level out at 40,000 cases reported per day, AND somehow the hospitals don't oversaturate, we're still looking at around 25,000 deaths in January.
Remember that the deaths column on the table as it stands is on the assumption that the hospitals don't overload. The hospitalisations figure would show the absolute maximum if all hospitals turned everyone away (not happening).
Foxy pointed out yesterday that the percentage of deaths (from German data) has dropped considerably.
I used data for the whole pandemic, from the ONS England data, to construct the table.
I was using the percentage of deaths against hospitalisation over the past month of data. My assumption is that this will incorporate most or all of the advances in healthcare against the disease.
EDIT: Ah, I get what you mean. Hmm - that does make a difference, but in which direction? Will the proportion of deaths against each age band change significantly, do you think? (That is: a higher proportion at the top, or levelling down a bit across the bands?)
362. I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold. I also accept that there is a strong public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations and that this is an important factor to have in mind. However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
Since the District Judge found for the USA on most of the points of law - tricky to see how they can appeal this.
So, he voluntarily imprisoned himself in a small apartment for seven years, which made him go mad. And now he’s mad, he’s unfit to be deported to stand trial?
Did I get that right?
Yep...
I have heard it mooted that as a result of legal precedents around autistic people and rule breaking, that it is only a matter of time before someone is sued *for hiring* an autistic person who proceeds to break rules. The reasoning being
- A number of judgements that autistic people are predisposed to break rules/hack - A number of judgements that punishment would harm them. - Therefore hiring them broke the duty of care to protect information etc.... - This would "break through" anti-discrimination legislation, since there would be a reason for discriminating against them in employment.
It would be sad, stupid and ironic, if this happens.
I am quite sure that if this has been mooted, that quiet discrimination is already occurring.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
Brexit isn't going to disappoint in material matters. It can't. Unless another useless money pit is invented to spew money into (there's Covid, but everywhere has that). Looking for it and hoping that it will is going to result in a lot of angst and disappointment for you - I seriously wouldn't bother.
The Thin Deal is expected to cost us significant GDP whereas Brexit was sold as a nice little earner. So that's quite a gap to cover up with smoke & mirrors. I agree it's unlikely that millions of Leavers will be crying foul but there might well be something insidious.
Everything Brexity is going to be totally overshadowed by Covid for the next year - or more. If we escape and the vaccines work there will be a surge of optimism and a GDP bounce back - who cares about Brexit?
If we slog on and the virus stays the same or worsens then - who cares about Brexit?
By the time the fog of the pandemic has cleared Brexit will probably seem quite trivial, except to the small hardcore on either side.
Thinking about the prospects of the NHS overloading (which is very plausibly imminent), I had a quick and dirty look at the numbers involved.
At the moment, it looks like a little over 40,000 cases declared against specimen date seems to equate to about 3000 hospitalisations per day. Using Malmesbury's figures for proportion of hospitalisation per age category, the long-running percentage of hospitalisations that die (27.8% in a scarily reliable average during the second wave) and the figures for the proportion of each age band that make up the deaths, and assuming it will scale up as the declared cases scale up, you get this table:
All laden with assumptions, of course (such as: are we catching a constant fraction of the true cases in our reported cases?)
We can then assume that deaths per age band will rise if hospital assistance isn't available, towards the hospitalised numbers (This is a more fraught assumption. On the one hand, not all deaths from covid are in hospital. On the other, not everyone hospitalised would die without help, although we do know they were hospitalised for a reason. I'd suspect the number would go from around 100% of the hospitalised figures at the eldest end of the scale to a distinctly smaller fraction at the bottom - although I doubt it would ever go much below a quarter, given that around a sixth of those children hospitalised need ICU, and we'd assume everyone who needs intensive care is a goner without support. That would leave as many as 90% of hospitalised children who didn't need ICU recovering without any support, which would seem optimistic, so that would be a top end)
We can use a rough rule of thumb that 1500 hospitalisations per day can be reliably coped with (when they reach saturation), as under 1500 has seen hospital populations descending and over 1500 has seen them climbing. Rough rule of thumb.
Assume triage is done to prioritise the youngest. Count upwards on the hospitalisations numbers on the daily row until you get to 1500. Every row above that has deaths actually tending towards hospitalisation numbers rather than actual deaths. (Further source of error: this will not be uniform over the country. Some areas might need to triage down to a third or quarter; others may not need to triage at all)
Make whatever assumptions you see fit on vaccination numbers, counting down. If you assume all over 85s are protected, remove this row. All over 75s, do the same. And so on. (Not all will be protected - maybe around 70%, but we're talking rough rule of thumb)
The scary thing is - if we level out at 40,000 cases reported per day, AND somehow the hospitals don't oversaturate, we're still looking at around 25,000 deaths in January.
Remember that the deaths column on the table as it stands is on the assumption that the hospitals don't overload. The hospitalisations figure would show the absolute maximum if all hospitals turned everyone away (not happening).
Thanks for your number crunching. Absorbing if a tad worrying.
However, is 25,000 dead in January that ‘scary’. It sounds bad but we already know many thousands more are going to die of Covid, in the UK and across the world. And many of them will die in the worst month: January. Before the vaccines kick in.
Moreover, January is the worst months for deaths anyway, isn’t it? And 600,000 die in the UK in a ‘normal’ year.
What is truly scary is your downside prediction for January if the NHS crashes: 100,000 dead. That pushes towards a wartime scale of national trauma
I don't think excess deaths are that high at the moment are they? There's almost no 'flu, as you'd expect.
No doubt the lockdown sceptics will point at these numbers in 6 months' time and tell us that it wasn't that bad, whilst ignoring what is happening in hospitals. We are definitely teetering on the edge.
Germany is seeking advice on whether to delay giving the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to make supplies go further, in a similar move to the UK, according to a document seen by the Reuters news agency.
The country's health ministry has asked an independent vaccination commission for its opinion on administering the second shot later than 42 days after the first.
So it's taken what, less than a week? To go from "the Brits are crazy" to the US and Germany following suit.
They will have looked at exactly the same numbers I have been looking at (constant supply of vaccine doses and capacity in a target rich environment for the virus). The largest gain in public health and economic terms comes from immunisation of as many people as possible in the shortest period of time, the case for a 12 week gap between jabs is undeniable IMO.
I would have bolstered the cabinet by having Hunt as the caretaker Health Sec (non Covid) and leaving Hancock as the Covid secretary a long time ago. Would have been better to have him in the tent pissing out.
Except that he’s been a loud opponent of the government since about February last year. He burned his bridges there very quickly, even if his experience would have been useful to have.
(Notwithstanding that he was SoS Health when the 2016 pandemic preparedness report recommendations got filed in the shredder).
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
Rightly, IMO, they fundamentally dislike taking away liberties.
I think that is a fair point, but we can all see the numbers (and of course they are ones in the rear view mirror). It is clear with these new variants, we can't contain it without much stricter rules.
How strict, tho? What if Tier 5 (spring lockdown, closed schools) doesn’t work? I guess they could literally order everyone indoors. 24 hour curfew. Tier 89. But even then you’d have essential workers going out... catching it...
Hopefully the vaccines work. I believe they will. But if they don’t we might have to be very brutal in our choices to save our health system.
Then you are really in the John Wyndham cosy dystopia genre.
And part of the tragedy would be that we have a government that isn't just partisan, but factional, in a way that hasn't really happened in living memory.
Boris wanted to be a god, so the gods punished him by giving him what he wanted.
"John Wyndham cosy dystopia" is a surpassingly brilliant bit of literary criticismm.
I read a bunch of John Wyndham recently, still holds up. Day of the Triffyds might well be a cosy dystopia but some of the characters are still smarter than about 98% of people in The Walking Dead.
As long as those 2m get stuck in arms, the Govt. will have done deals that really have maximised our ability to fight this. 12-15m with their first dose by end-February should be a big pushback against this Bastard Bug.
But doses sat around not being used quickly will be a BIG political problem.
362. I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold. I also accept that there is a strong public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations and that this is an important factor to have in mind. However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
Since the District Judge found for the USA on most of the points of law - tricky to see how they can appeal this.
So, he voluntarily imprisoned himself in a small apartment for seven years, which made him go mad. And now he’s mad, he’s unfit to be deported to stand trial?
Did I get that right?
And he's coming out of Belmarsh into Tier 5 lockdown.
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
I don't dislike Boris personally, but really the weekend interview where he rambled about quite possibly introducing unspecified stricter measures in parts of the country in a few weeks' time showed him at his very worst. This sort of vacillation actually encourages people to get out and enjoy relative freedom while it lasts, which is exactly the wrong message. We don't need to be gently eased into restrictions like 5-year-olds. Get on with with it!
I am no Boris fan and I think lots of his positions are purely playing to gallery, but I think when it comes to lockdown it is something he genuinely finds goes against his beliefs. All polling says he would get loads of credit for strict lockdown measures, he has loads of political cover, it is advantageous for his premiership to do it, but he clearly finds it nearly impossible to do.
We know he will get there eventually, its a matter of how long and then how many days after he announces it, that the new measures come in. It really should have been announced Saturday, for today.
But if that's the reason I don't think it paints Johnson in any better light. There are no mainstream politicians in any party who relish the notion of closing schools and stopping people doing things like seeing their friends and family. From what I glean, the virus situation and short term prognosis is dire and there is not a shadow of a doubt that we will soon be in a Tier 5+ national lockdown which will last for many weeks.
I am no doubt seething with anti BJ prejudice, but I think his deep unwillingness to front up bad news is more of a factor than any problems with his beliefs (whatever they might be). Very unChurchillian.
And it's a shame. Through gritted synapses I recognize that he is gifted with an ability to reach people. He could deliver the "At this time of great peril for our nation we must make a supreme national effort" speech that imo is required. But no. Cometh the Hour flunketh the Man. So far anyway. Maybe this evening or tomorrow. Or Wednesday.
Yep, in the karaoke Beatles stakes, BJ could probably manage a Love Me Do, but Let It Be way beyond him.
Q, if Churchill had not given his 'Blood, toil, tears and sweat' & 'We shall fight on the beaches' speeches, would it have made a material difference to the outcome of the war?
Probably not. I tend to the "structure over agency" side of these things, to quote something I got a tenuous hold of from a dense work a long time ago. But ironically, I think the big inspirational speech would maybe make more difference in something like this than a war. Because it's so much about people's micro behaviour here at home as opposed to macro military logistics overseas.
So that's Germany and the US previously critical of the policy probably set to introduce it. Good to see them make the same u turn I did, the maths is absolutely undeniable having done it this morning. Single jabs give 30-40% more coverage at 70% efficacy for a single jab, if it's as high as 90% as is being investigated then it really is a no brainer.
Strangely this topic came up in my team call earlier - they unanimously think the single jab for now is a no brainer - I was actually surprised considering all the heat that has been on here about it.
Online schooling seems to be working pretty well for my 17-year-old, so far. He's had two lessons this morning, and he reckons he is learning more and getting more work done at home than he would have done in school, notwithstanding a couple of technical glitches at the start. The only drawback is that he expects a cup of tea from me at break times. Hats off to his school and teachers for getting themselves organised at such short notice!
That's great, though I think LFH works better for middle class families with parents that WFH or working class immigrant families where education is a the major priority for children. For white working class families I can imagine the focus on education is much more lax outside of the school setting.
For example, for children of 1st generation immigrants, the immersion in English at school, as early as possible, is massive factor in acquiring good English skills.
Yes, absolutely. Even for my sister and I growing up in a multi-generational household where English wasn't spoken at home as the main language school was definitely the first place where we came into contact with English properly. From what I can tell it was also around that time that our household went from our own language first to English being primarily spoken at home. One of my earliest memories of if my grandfather speaking perfect Queen's English to my sister and I and being really confused that he could.
Please excuse the pedantry (and since we're on the subject of English), but that should be "... speaking perfect Queen's English to my sister and me" since the pronoun in question is part of the (indirect) object of the sentence, not the subject. That's one grammar mistake that, sadly, I know, always winds me up a little bit!
This used to trip me up until a friend put it like this: take the other person out and see whether it sounds right. In this case, it would become "speaking perfect Queen's English to I" or "speaking perfect Queen's English to me". Not hard to get it right when you do that.
100% this.
Though would not help my youngest daughter, we are currently trying to teach her to use the word I when she speaks. She currently uses the word me in all circumstances to refer to herself. "Can me have a cookie", "me is thirsty". It's cute but we correct her now to try and get her to learn and say it properly.
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
Maybe they should explain why none of their previous lockdowns have worked as expected before imposing another one.
362. I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold. I also accept that there is a strong public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations and that this is an important factor to have in mind. However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
Since the District Judge found for the USA on most of the points of law - tricky to see how they can appeal this.
So, he voluntarily imprisoned himself in a small apartment for seven years, which made him go mad. And now he’s mad, he’s unfit to be deported to stand trial?
Did I get that right?
Yep...
I have heard it mooted that as a result of legal precedents around autistic people and rule breaking, that it is only a matter of time before someone is sued *for hiring* an autistic person who proceeds to break rules. The reasoning being
- A number of judgements that autistic people are predisposed to break rules/hack - A number of judgements that punishment would harm them. - Therefore hiring them broke the duty of care to protect information etc.... - This would "break through" anti-discrimination legislation, since there would be a reason for discriminating against them in employment.
It would be sad, stupid and ironic, if this happens.
I am quite sure that if this has been mooted, that quiet discrimination is already occurring.
That’s genuinely scary.
Yes, it is scary.
But what do you do, if you are hiring, say in an investment bank. Candidate A has autism (or appears to on interview), Candidate B doesn't.... You shouldn't discriminate, but if A is hired and it comes back on you....
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
People hate to admit that they were wrong. Weirdly, I think this is particularly true when they have been lied to. So for a long time I suspect that the anti-Brexit message will fall on deaf ears, and will put people's backs up. On the other hand, they are not going to hear the message if nobody is making it. You are right that the trend in many of these seats is against Labour anyway - eg mining seats are transforming from industrial to rural areas - with plenty of newcomers including some white flight from Northern cities who are not going to be Labour voters. Labour doesn't need to win all of these seats, and won't even in a landslide win.
Then we get back to Starmer's approach; Brexit has been done, there's no debate, use the mechanisms in Boris's terrible deal to make it work better for people. (Whisper it, but that's going to mean closer engagement with the EU as it is, and acknowledging that whilst the sovereignty of the UK and EU are of equal type and status, they are not of equal mass.)
In the meantime, think tanks can think, and fringe politicians can keep the flame alive. Not dignified, and not much fun for the impatient, but it is the only way for now.
I think that is about right. I would add that every so often it would make sense to lob in a grenade whenever a particularly egregious Brexit development emerges. A kind of more in sorrow than anger approach - "unfortunately the government's arrogant and extreme approach to implementing Brexit has led to this..."; "I don't think this is the kind of Brexit people voted for"; "Brexit isn't working out like we were promised"; "Brexit isn't working". Just keep chipping away.
Give it a month before "STFU, you whining loser twats" becomes the popular response.
That will be the immediate response, it won't take a month. But over time as the gap between Brexit the lie and Brexit the reality becomes more obvious then it will slowly gain traction. Alternatively, if Brexit turns out to be great then everyone is a winner. Personally I don't think that is very likely.
Cons. looking awesome on those numbers, up three! It must be a combination of the vaccine, the deal and Boris saving Christmas. The net dropped point for Labour was Drakeford singularly failing to save Christmas here in Wales.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
Brexit isn't going to disappoint in material matters. It can't. Unless another useless money pit is invented to spew money into (there's Covid, but everywhere has that). Looking for it and hoping that it will is going to result in a lot of angst and disappointment for you - I seriously wouldn't bother.
The Thin Deal is expected to cost us significant GDP whereas Brexit was sold as a nice little earner. So that's quite a gap to cover up with smoke & mirrors. I agree it's unlikely that millions of Leavers will be crying foul but there might well be something insidious.
Everything Brexity is going to be totally overshadowed by Covid for the next year - or more. If we escape and the vaccines work there will be a surge of optimism and a GDP bounce back - who cares about Brexit?
If we slog on and the virus stays the same or worsens then - who cares about Brexit?
By the time the fog of the pandemic has cleared Brexit will probably seem quite trivial, except to the small hardcore on either side.
Covid may well have helped us get a deal, the EU's (strong) hand was weakened by the addition of this crisis in that they'd want to be devoting as little time as possible to messing about with WTO tariffs or some such at this time. No covid and Macron has plenty more time and energy to play games with us.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
People hate to admit that they were wrong. Weirdly, I think this is particularly true when they have been lied to. So for a long time I suspect that the anti-Brexit message will fall on deaf ears, and will put people's backs up. On the other hand, they are not going to hear the message if nobody is making it. You are right that the trend in many of these seats is against Labour anyway - eg mining seats are transforming from industrial to rural areas - with plenty of newcomers including some white flight from Northern cities who are not going to be Labour voters. Labour doesn't need to win all of these seats, and won't even in a landslide win.
Then we get back to Starmer's approach; Brexit has been done, there's no debate, use the mechanisms in Boris's terrible deal to make it work better for people. (Whisper it, but that's going to mean closer engagement with the EU as it is, and acknowledging that whilst the sovereignty of the UK and EU are of equal type and status, they are not of equal mass.)
In the meantime, think tanks can think, and fringe politicians can keep the flame alive. Not dignified, and not much fun for the impatient, but it is the only way for now.
I think that is about right. I would add that every so often it would make sense to lob in a grenade whenever a particularly egregious Brexit development emerges. A kind of more in sorrow than anger approach - "unfortunately the government's arrogant and extreme approach to implementing Brexit has led to this..."; "I don't think this is the kind of Brexit people voted for"; "Brexit isn't working out like we were promised"; "Brexit isn't working". Just keep chipping away.
Give it a month before "STFU, you whining loser twats" becomes the popular response.
I don't think GE24 will be good for the Cons if they are relying on that sentiment to win it.
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
Maybe they should explain why none of their previous lockdowns have worked as expected before imposing another one.
What? Both of them certainly reduced infections, hospitalisations, and deaths. The longer and more stringent one in March-May most of all. Why do you think they didn’t?
As long as those 2m get stuck in arms, the Govt. will have done deals that really have maximised our ability to fight this. 12-15m with their first dose by end-February should be a big pushback against this Bastard Bug.
But doses sat around not being used quickly will be a BIG political problem.
That's 2m per week of AZ, we also have around 1m constant supply of Pfizer per week too which is increasing. We should be able to jab 3m people per week by the end of January, at 70% efficacy we should have ~25m people immunised by the end of the first 12 week cycle. That should allow significant easing of restrictions.
Boris Johnson says there is "no question that we are going to have to take tougher measures" to reduce the spread of a new variant of coronavirus, which he said was requiring "extra special vigilance".
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
Brexit isn't going to disappoint in material matters. It can't. Unless another useless money pit is invented to spew money into (there's Covid, but everywhere has that). Looking for it and hoping that it will is going to result in a lot of angst and disappointment for you - I seriously wouldn't bother.
The Thin Deal is expected to cost us significant GDP whereas Brexit was sold as a nice little earner. So that's quite a gap to cover up with smoke & mirrors. I agree it's unlikely that millions of Leavers will be crying foul but there might well be something insidious.
Everything Brexity is going to be totally overshadowed by Covid for the next year - or more. If we escape and the vaccines work there will be a surge of optimism and a GDP bounce back - who cares about Brexit?
If we slog on and the virus stays the same or worsens then - who cares about Brexit?
By the time the fog of the pandemic has cleared Brexit will probably seem quite trivial, except to the small hardcore on either side.
I doubt it. In five years we will be talking a lot more about Brexit than Covid.
France is starting to vaccinate healthcare workers over 50, but President Emmanuel Macron has voiced his anger at the slow progress of the rollout in one of the world's most vaccine-sceptical countries.
Do we have any idea why the French are a bunch of anti-vaxxers?
So that's Germany and the US previously critical of the policy probably set to introduce it. Good to see them make the same u turn I did, the maths is absolutely undeniable having done it this morning. Single jabs give 30-40% more coverage at 70% efficacy for a single jab, if it's as high as 90% as is being investigated then it really is a no brainer.
Reminds me of the OR classic about calling off depth charge attacks in WWII.
When attacking diving U Boats, aircraft had x seconds to make an attack before the U Boat could manoeuvre. After that it was better *not* to try it. Save the depth charges for another attack.
When implemented, it resulted in a drop in Ed* *and* an increase in Dn**
* Expenditure of death charges ** Number of dead Nazis.
Boris Johnson says there is "no question that we are going to have to take tougher measures" to reduce the spread of a new variant of coronavirus, which he said was requiring "extra special vigilance".
Well bloody get on with it...
Yes this whole trailing of tougher measures encourages people to make the most of whatever limited freedoms they have available at the time.
France is starting to vaccinate healthcare workers over 50, but President Emmanuel Macron has voiced his anger at the slow progress of the rollout in one of the world's most vaccine-sceptical countries.
Do we have any idea why the French are a bunch of anti-vaxxers?
Starting to... well that’s an understatement.
How did they do 500 the other day, when the vaccine comes in packs of 1000 that quickly deteriorate once the pack is opened? Did half of them get thrown away?
362. I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold. I also accept that there is a strong public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations and that this is an important factor to have in mind. However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
Since the District Judge found for the USA on most of the points of law - tricky to see how they can appeal this.
So, he voluntarily imprisoned himself in a small apartment for seven years, which made him go mad. And now he’s mad, he’s unfit to be deported to stand trial?
Did I get that right?
Yep...
I have heard it mooted that as a result of legal precedents around autistic people and rule breaking, that it is only a matter of time before someone is sued *for hiring* an autistic person who proceeds to break rules. The reasoning being
- A number of judgements that autistic people are predisposed to break rules/hack - A number of judgements that punishment would harm them. - Therefore hiring them broke the duty of care to protect information etc.... - This would "break through" anti-discrimination legislation, since there would be a reason for discriminating against them in employment.
It would be sad, stupid and ironic, if this happens.
I am quite sure that if this has been mooted, that quiet discrimination is already occurring.
That’s genuinely scary.
Yes, it is scary.
But what do you do, if you are hiring, say in an investment bank. Candidate A has autism (or appears to on interview), Candidate B doesn't.... You shouldn't discriminate, but if A is hired and it comes back on you....
Takes guts to take a risk like that.
For some roles being on the spectrum could count as a positive - certainly there have been reports to that effect in the past.
I have autistic children, I am no doubt on the spectrum myself but certain of those traits made me very good at the job I do - whilst admittingly making some other parts harder.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
Brexit isn't going to disappoint in material matters. It can't. Unless another useless money pit is invented to spew money into (there's Covid, but everywhere has that). Looking for it and hoping that it will is going to result in a lot of angst and disappointment for you - I seriously wouldn't bother.
The Thin Deal is expected to cost us significant GDP whereas Brexit was sold as a nice little earner. So that's quite a gap to cover up with smoke & mirrors. I agree it's unlikely that millions of Leavers will be crying foul but there might well be something insidious.
Everything Brexity is going to be totally overshadowed by Covid for the next year - or more. If we escape and the vaccines work there will be a surge of optimism and a GDP bounce back - who cares about Brexit?
If we slog on and the virus stays the same or worsens then - who cares about Brexit?
By the time the fog of the pandemic has cleared Brexit will probably seem quite trivial, except to the small hardcore on either side.
I doubt it. In five years we will be talking a lot more about Brexit than Covid.
France is starting to vaccinate healthcare workers over 50, but President Emmanuel Macron has voiced his anger at the slow progress of the rollout in one of the world's most vaccine-sceptical countries.
Do we have any idea why the French are a bunch of anti-vaxxers?
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
Maybe they should explain why none of their previous lockdowns have worked as expected before imposing another one.
France is starting to vaccinate healthcare workers over 50, but President Emmanuel Macron has voiced his anger at the slow progress of the rollout in one of the world's most vaccine-sceptical countries.
Do we have any idea why the French are a bunch of anti-vaxxers?
Starting to... well that’s an understatement.
How did they do 500 the other day, when the vaccine comes in packs of 1000 that quickly deteriorate once the pack is opened? Did half of them get thrown away?
Probably started, went for their 3hr lunch break.....
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
Brexit isn't going to disappoint in material matters. It can't. Unless another useless money pit is invented to spew money into (there's Covid, but everywhere has that). Looking for it and hoping that it will is going to result in a lot of angst and disappointment for you - I seriously wouldn't bother.
The Thin Deal is expected to cost us significant GDP whereas Brexit was sold as a nice little earner. So that's quite a gap to cover up with smoke & mirrors. I agree it's unlikely that millions of Leavers will be crying foul but there might well be something insidious.
Everything Brexity is going to be totally overshadowed by Covid for the next year - or more. If we escape and the vaccines work there will be a surge of optimism and a GDP bounce back - who cares about Brexit?
If we slog on and the virus stays the same or worsens then - who cares about Brexit?
By the time the fog of the pandemic has cleared Brexit will probably seem quite trivial, except to the small hardcore on either side.
I doubt it. In five years we will be talking a lot more about Brexit than Covid.
In five years we won't be talking about either. We will be talking about whatever new issue has come to the fore.
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
Maybe they should explain why none of their previous lockdowns have worked as expected before imposing another one.
What? Both of them certainly reduced infections, hospitalisations, and deaths. The longer and more stringent one in March-May most of all. Why do you think they didn’t?
I would have bolstered the cabinet by having Hunt as the caretaker Health Sec (non Covid) and leaving Hancock as the Covid secretary a long time ago. Would have been better to have him in the tent pissing out.
Except that he’s been a loud opponent of the government since about February last year. He burned his bridges there very quickly, even if his experience would have been useful to have.
(Notwithstanding that he was SoS Health when the 2016 pandemic preparedness report recommendations got filed in the shredder).
Unlike the current cabinet and PM, he appears to be able to learn from his mistakes.
So that's Germany and the US previously critical of the policy probably set to introduce it. Good to see them make the same u turn I did, the maths is absolutely undeniable having done it this morning. Single jabs give 30-40% more coverage at 70% efficacy for a single jab, if it's as high as 90% as is being investigated then it really is a no brainer.
We will genuinely be world leading on this policy innovation for better or worse.
Pfizer one appears to be 52% efficacy after first dose... so probably pretty debatable for that one whether there is much benefit to single jab approach https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826
France is starting to vaccinate healthcare workers over 50, but President Emmanuel Macron has voiced his anger at the slow progress of the rollout in one of the world's most vaccine-sceptical countries.
Do we have any idea why the French are a bunch of anti-vaxxers?
Starting to... well that’s an understatement.
How did they do 500 the other day, when the vaccine comes in packs of 1000 that quickly deteriorate once the pack is opened? Did half of them get thrown away?
I *believe* the shipments can be broken into smaller lots and kept at -70c if the splitting is done quickly and carefully.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
People hate to admit that they were wrong. Weirdly, I think this is particularly true when they have been lied to. So for a long time I suspect that the anti-Brexit message will fall on deaf ears, and will put people's backs up. On the other hand, they are not going to hear the message if nobody is making it. You are right that the trend in many of these seats is against Labour anyway - eg mining seats are transforming from industrial to rural areas - with plenty of newcomers including some white flight from Northern cities who are not going to be Labour voters. Labour doesn't need to win all of these seats, and won't even in a landslide win.
Then we get back to Starmer's approach; Brexit has been done, there's no debate, use the mechanisms in Boris's terrible deal to make it work better for people. (Whisper it, but that's going to mean closer engagement with the EU as it is, and acknowledging that whilst the sovereignty of the UK and EU are of equal type and status, they are not of equal mass.)
In the meantime, think tanks can think, and fringe politicians can keep the flame alive. Not dignified, and not much fun for the impatient, but it is the only way for now.
I think that is about right. I would add that every so often it would make sense to lob in a grenade whenever a particularly egregious Brexit development emerges. A kind of more in sorrow than anger approach - "unfortunately the government's arrogant and extreme approach to implementing Brexit has led to this..."; "I don't think this is the kind of Brexit people voted for"; "Brexit isn't working out like we were promised"; "Brexit isn't working". Just keep chipping away.
Give it a month before "STFU, you whining loser twats" becomes the popular response.
I don't think GE24 will be good for the Cons if they are relying on that sentiment to win it.
If the Opposition make the mistake of being whinging loser twats then of course that is what the public thinks. You don't win by refighting the battles you've lost again and again and again saying to the public "why won't you idiots accepting you made a stupid mistake" - you win by moving onto new terrain that better suits you.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
Brexit isn't going to disappoint in material matters. It can't. Unless another useless money pit is invented to spew money into (there's Covid, but everywhere has that). Looking for it and hoping that it will is going to result in a lot of angst and disappointment for you - I seriously wouldn't bother.
The Thin Deal is expected to cost us significant GDP whereas Brexit was sold as a nice little earner. So that's quite a gap to cover up with smoke & mirrors. I agree it's unlikely that millions of Leavers will be crying foul but there might well be something insidious.
Everything Brexity is going to be totally overshadowed by Covid for the next year - or more. If we escape and the vaccines work there will be a surge of optimism and a GDP bounce back - who cares about Brexit?
If we slog on and the virus stays the same or worsens then - who cares about Brexit?
By the time the fog of the pandemic has cleared Brexit will probably seem quite trivial, except to the small hardcore on either side.
I doubt it. In five years we will be talking a lot more about Brexit than Covid.
In five years we won't be talking about either. We will be talking about whatever new issue has come to the fore.
In 30 years we will still be talking about the damage covid restrictions did to our finances. The children and grandchildren whose educations we are busy wrecking, specifically. They will have to pay the money back. Or they will be suffering the consequences of a grossly devalued currency.
France is starting to vaccinate healthcare workers over 50, but President Emmanuel Macron has voiced his anger at the slow progress of the rollout in one of the world's most vaccine-sceptical countries.
Do we have any idea why the French are a bunch of anti-vaxxers?
Starting to... well that’s an understatement.
How did they do 500 the other day, when the vaccine comes in packs of 1000 that quickly deteriorate once the pack is opened? Did half of them get thrown away?
They should do what the israelis are doing. If you fancy getting a vaccine and don't mind queueing (And very likely coming home empty shotted) you simply head along to where the vaccinations are taking place and queue for it. Ensures all the vaccinations are used up.
If hundreds of thousands of students are sitting around at home, going mad, why doesn’t HMG train them all up to be vaccinators?
They’re young, fit, smart, and the least likely to get ill. It will also allow them to socialise and flirt, at least a bit. So they don’t go mad. Win win.
yeah, at least look into it
Students have exams to revise for. They're not sitting around doing nothing.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
People hate to admit that they were wrong. Weirdly, I think this is particularly true when they have been lied to. So for a long time I suspect that the anti-Brexit message will fall on deaf ears, and will put people's backs up. On the other hand, they are not going to hear the message if nobody is making it. You are right that the trend in many of these seats is against Labour anyway - eg mining seats are transforming from industrial to rural areas - with plenty of newcomers including some white flight from Northern cities who are not going to be Labour voters. Labour doesn't need to win all of these seats, and won't even in a landslide win.
Then we get back to Starmer's approach; Brexit has been done, there's no debate, use the mechanisms in Boris's terrible deal to make it work better for people. (Whisper it, but that's going to mean closer engagement with the EU as it is, and acknowledging that whilst the sovereignty of the UK and EU are of equal type and status, they are not of equal mass.)
In the meantime, think tanks can think, and fringe politicians can keep the flame alive. Not dignified, and not much fun for the impatient, but it is the only way for now.
I think that is about right. I would add that every so often it would make sense to lob in a grenade whenever a particularly egregious Brexit development emerges. A kind of more in sorrow than anger approach - "unfortunately the government's arrogant and extreme approach to implementing Brexit has led to this..."; "I don't think this is the kind of Brexit people voted for"; "Brexit isn't working out like we were promised"; "Brexit isn't working". Just keep chipping away.
Give it a month before "STFU, you whining loser twats" becomes the popular response.
That will be the immediate response, it won't take a month. But over time as the gap between Brexit the lie and Brexit the reality becomes more obvious then it will slowly gain traction. Alternatively, if Brexit turns out to be great then everyone is a winner. Personally I don't think that is very likely.
On the other hand, our maximal sovereignty Brexit deal sets up a long-term strategic problem for Labour. Starmer can offer the country closer economic ties with the EU, but only meaningfully so if we accept the four freedoms in full once again.
How will 'Labour wants to hand back control of our borders to the EU' play in an election campaign?
362. I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold. I also accept that there is a strong public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations and that this is an important factor to have in mind. However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
Since the District Judge found for the USA on most of the points of law - tricky to see how they can appeal this.
So, he voluntarily imprisoned himself in a small apartment for seven years, which made him go mad. And now he’s mad, he’s unfit to be deported to stand trial?
Did I get that right?
Yep...
I have heard it mooted that as a result of legal precedents around autistic people and rule breaking, that it is only a matter of time before someone is sued *for hiring* an autistic person who proceeds to break rules. The reasoning being
- A number of judgements that autistic people are predisposed to break rules/hack - A number of judgements that punishment would harm them. - Therefore hiring them broke the duty of care to protect information etc.... - This would "break through" anti-discrimination legislation, since there would be a reason for discriminating against them in employment.
It would be sad, stupid and ironic, if this happens.
I am quite sure that if this has been mooted, that quiet discrimination is already occurring.
That’s genuinely scary.
Yes, it is scary.
But what do you do, if you are hiring, say in an investment bank. Candidate A has autism (or appears to on interview), Candidate B doesn't.... You shouldn't discriminate, but if A is hired and it comes back on you....
Takes guts to take a risk like that.
For some roles being on the spectrum could count as a positive - certainly there have been reports to that effect in the past.
I have autistic children, I am no doubt on the spectrum myself but certain of those traits made me very good at the job I do - whilst admittingly making some other parts harder.
Indeed.
But if you are now classed, in effect, a naturally liable to break the rules?
If anyone is interested Dr. June Raine, CEO of the MHRA, was just interviewed on R5L, talking about single doses, the approval process, the rollout and batch testing, amongst other things. A very calm and reassuring presence. Edit. Around 12:10 to 12:30 pm.
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
Maybe they should explain why none of their previous lockdowns have worked as expected before imposing another one.
What? Both of them certainly reduced infections, hospitalisations, and deaths. The longer and more stringent one in March-May most of all. Why do you think they didn’t?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
“Just because they’ve worked exactly as expected here and everywhere else following exactly the principles expected doesn’t mean they’re linked.”
- “Lockdowns?”
“No, my car brakes. You won’t see ME wasting my time pressing the brakes when I need to slow down urgently.”
As we ‘luxuriate in our own misery’ spare a thought for some remote countries, suffering with Covid, in much worse circumstances
eg Nepal. Very reliant on a now-collapsed tourist economy. As a result it is facing famine, families are selling daughters, millions of already poor people are set to get poorer: so so sad.
France is starting to vaccinate healthcare workers over 50, but President Emmanuel Macron has voiced his anger at the slow progress of the rollout in one of the world's most vaccine-sceptical countries.
Do we have any idea why the French are a bunch of anti-vaxxers?
Good question.
According to an old i article, a series of scandals and mishaps with vaccines have been an issue:
"This lack of trust in vaccines, despite overwhelming evidence that they are safe and effective, can be traced at least in part to the French government’s mishandling of a series of medical scares."
Thinking about the prospects of the NHS overloading (which is very plausibly imminent), I had a quick and dirty look at the numbers involved.
At the moment, it looks like a little over 40,000 cases declared against specimen date seems to equate to about 3000 hospitalisations per day. Using Malmesbury's figures for proportion of hospitalisation per age category, the long-running percentage of hospitalisations that die (27.8% in a scarily reliable average during the second wave) and the figures for the proportion of each age band that make up the deaths, and assuming it will scale up as the declared cases scale up, you get this table:
All laden with assumptions, of course (such as: are we catching a constant fraction of the true cases in our reported cases?)
We can then assume that deaths per age band will rise if hospital assistance isn't available, towards the hospitalised numbers (This is a more fraught assumption. On the one hand, not all deaths from covid are in hospital. On the other, not everyone hospitalised would die without help, although we do know they were hospitalised for a reason. I'd suspect the number would go from around 100% of the hospitalised figures at the eldest end of the scale to a distinctly smaller fraction at the bottom - although I doubt it would ever go much below a quarter, given that around a sixth of those children hospitalised need ICU, and we'd assume everyone who needs intensive care is a goner without support. That would leave as many as 90% of hospitalised children who didn't need ICU recovering without any support, which would seem optimistic, so that would be a top end)
We can use a rough rule of thumb that 1500 hospitalisations per day can be reliably coped with (when they reach saturation), as under 1500 has seen hospital populations descending and over 1500 has seen them climbing. Rough rule of thumb.
Assume triage is done to prioritise the youngest. Count upwards on the hospitalisations numbers on the daily row until you get to 1500. Every row above that has deaths actually tending towards hospitalisation numbers rather than actual deaths. (Further source of error: this will not be uniform over the country. Some areas might need to triage down to a third or quarter; others may not need to triage at all)
Make whatever assumptions you see fit on vaccination numbers, counting down. If you assume all over 85s are protected, remove this row. All over 75s, do the same. And so on. (Not all will be protected - maybe around 70%, but we're talking rough rule of thumb)
The scary thing is - if we level out at 40,000 cases reported per day, AND somehow the hospitals don't oversaturate, we're still looking at around 25,000 deaths in January.
Remember that the deaths column on the table as it stands is on the assumption that the hospitals don't overload. The hospitalisations figure would show the absolute maximum if all hospitals turned everyone away (not happening).
Great work.
A question: is there an argument for diverting resources from testing to vaccination provision?
Putting it another way, do we gain more by 1) identifying tens of thousands of positive cases (which represent only a small percentage of the overall tests conducted; the vast majority of tests result in a negative result/ or positive but no significant health effects) or 2) by significantly ramping up vaccine delivery, thus vaccinating more people more quickly?
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
I don't dislike Boris personally, but really the weekend interview where he rambled about quite possibly introducing unspecified stricter measures in parts of the country in a few weeks' time showed him at his very worst. This sort of vacillation actually encourages people to get out and enjoy relative freedom while it lasts, which is exactly the wrong message. We don't need to be gently eased into restrictions like 5-year-olds. Get on with with it!
I am no Boris fan and I think lots of his positions are purely playing to gallery, but I think when it comes to lockdown it is something he genuinely finds goes against his beliefs. All polling says he would get loads of credit for strict lockdown measures, he has loads of political cover, it is advantageous for his premiership to do it, but he clearly finds it nearly impossible to do.
We know he will get there eventually, its a matter of how long and then how many days after he announces it, that the new measures come in. It really should have been announced Saturday, for today.
But if that's the reason I don't think it paints Johnson in any better light. There are no mainstream politicians in any party who relish the notion of closing schools and stopping people doing things like seeing their friends and family. From what I glean, the virus situation and short term prognosis is dire and there is not a shadow of a doubt that we will soon be in a Tier 5+ national lockdown which will last for many weeks.
I am no doubt seething with anti BJ prejudice, but I think his deep unwillingness to front up bad news is more of a factor than any problems with his beliefs (whatever they might be). Very unChurchillian.
And it's a shame. Through gritted synapses I recognize that he is gifted with an ability to reach people. He could deliver the "At this time of great peril for our nation we must make a supreme national effort" speech that imo is required. But no. Cometh the Hour flunketh the Man. So far anyway. Maybe this evening or tomorrow. Or Wednesday.
Yep, in the karaoke Beatles stakes, BJ could probably manage a Love Me Do, but Let It Be way beyond him.
Q, if Churchill had not given his 'Blood, toil, tears and sweat' & 'We shall fight on the beaches' speeches, would it have made a material difference to the outcome of the war?
Probably not. I tend to the "structure over agency" side of these things, to quote something I got a tenuous hold of from a dense work a long time ago. But ironically, I think the big inspirational speech would maybe make more difference in something like this than a war. Because it's so much about people's micro behaviour here at home as opposed to macro military logistics overseas.
The speeches themselves is one thing, but Churchill being the kind of guy who gave that sort of speech probably made a bit of a difference.
Pl;us it depends what you mean by outcome. Eventual defeat of Hitler was nailed on pretty much from the outset, but the non-availability of GB as Airstrip One in 1944 would have complicated the fightback.
If hundreds of thousands of students are sitting around at home, going mad, why doesn’t HMG train them all up to be vaccinators?
They’re young, fit, smart, and the least likely to get ill. It will also allow them to socialise and flirt, at least a bit. So they don’t go mad. Win win.
yeah, at least look into it
Students have exams to revise for. They're not sitting around doing nothing.
Lol. Were you ever a student?
I know quite a few students. Many on the artier end of the spectrum are not exactly overworked
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
Maybe they should explain why none of their previous lockdowns have worked as expected before imposing another one.
What? Both of them certainly reduced infections, hospitalisations, and deaths. The longer and more stringent one in March-May most of all. Why do you think they didn’t?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
“Just because they’ve worked exactly as expected here and everywhere else following exactly the principles expected doesn’t mean they’re linked.”
- “Lockdowns?”
“No, my car brakes. You won’t see ME wasting my time pressing the brakes when I need to slow down urgently.”
- “Ah. I think I’ll take an Uber.”
Surely.... drive like the legendary Italian taxi driver - accelerate through the green lights.
Because his brother might be coming to the intersection as well...
Good news for Boris as he is back in the lead with a poll taken even before the Deal, not bad for Starmer either with Labour also up as both Others and the Greens get squeezed
So that's Germany and the US previously critical of the policy probably set to introduce it. Good to see them make the same u turn I did, the maths is absolutely undeniable having done it this morning. Single jabs give 30-40% more coverage at 70% efficacy for a single jab, if it's as high as 90% as is being investigated then it really is a no brainer.
Strangely this topic came up in my team call earlier - they unanimously think the single jab for now is a no brainer - I was actually surprised considering all the heat that has been on here about it.
It's not a complete no brainer, as there is perhaps a slightly increased risk of vaccine escape by virus mutation if the booster shot is too long delayed, but in the current circumstances that doesn't come near to outweighing the benefits of greater coverage.
362. I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold. I also accept that there is a strong public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations and that this is an important factor to have in mind. However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
Since the District Judge found for the USA on most of the points of law - tricky to see how they can appeal this.
So, he voluntarily imprisoned himself in a small apartment for seven years, which made him go mad. And now he’s mad, he’s unfit to be deported to stand trial?
Did I get that right?
Yep...
I have heard it mooted that as a result of legal precedents around autistic people and rule breaking, that it is only a matter of time before someone is sued *for hiring* an autistic person who proceeds to break rules. The reasoning being
- A number of judgements that autistic people are predisposed to break rules/hack - A number of judgements that punishment would harm them. - Therefore hiring them broke the duty of care to protect information etc.... - This would "break through" anti-discrimination legislation, since there would be a reason for discriminating against them in employment.
It would be sad, stupid and ironic, if this happens.
I am quite sure that if this has been mooted, that quiet discrimination is already occurring.
That’s genuinely scary.
Yes, it is scary.
But what do you do, if you are hiring, say in an investment bank. Candidate A has autism (or appears to on interview), Candidate B doesn't.... You shouldn't discriminate, but if A is hired and it comes back on you....
Takes guts to take a risk like that.
For some roles being on the spectrum could count as a positive - certainly there have been reports to that effect in the past.
I have autistic children, I am no doubt on the spectrum myself but certain of those traits made me very good at the job I do - whilst admittingly making some other parts harder.
Indeed.
But if you are now classed, in effect, a naturally liable to break the rules?
*Mandatory* discrimination?
To be honest i'm MORE likely to follow the rules - unless the rules would require me to lie.
362. I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold. I also accept that there is a strong public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations and that this is an important factor to have in mind. However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
Since the District Judge found for the USA on most of the points of law - tricky to see how they can appeal this.
So, he voluntarily imprisoned himself in a small apartment for seven years, which made him go mad. And now he’s mad, he’s unfit to be deported to stand trial?
Did I get that right?
And he's coming out of Belmarsh into Tier 5 lockdown.
A possible reason for the low number of deaths in East Asian countries could be the fact that obesity is much less of a problem. There is an increasing problem of obesity in China but it mainly affects younger and middle-aged people. Taiwan for example has one of the lowest levels in the world and also one of the lowest number of deaths from Covid-19.
France is starting to vaccinate healthcare workers over 50, but President Emmanuel Macron has voiced his anger at the slow progress of the rollout in one of the world's most vaccine-sceptical countries.
Do we have any idea why the French are a bunch of anti-vaxxers?
Starting to... well that’s an understatement.
How did they do 500 the other day, when the vaccine comes in packs of 1000 that quickly deteriorate once the pack is opened? Did half of them get thrown away?
They should do what the israelis are doing. If you fancy getting a vaccine and don't mind queueing (And very likely coming home empty shotted) you simply head along to where the vaccinations are taking place and queue for it. Ensures all the vaccinations are used up.
We should be doing that too, especially once the AZ vaccine really starts to get going. Have people queue up to get jabbed, get a date for their return visit 12 weeks later with email, text and phone reminders the week before.
I wouldn't mind queuing up for a few hours to get the vaccine once we have enough supply.
If hundreds of thousands of students are sitting around at home, going mad, why doesn’t HMG train them all up to be vaccinators?
They’re young, fit, smart, and the least likely to get ill. It will also allow them to socialise and flirt, at least a bit. So they don’t go mad. Win win.
yeah, at least look into it
Students have exams to revise for. They're not sitting around doing nothing.
Lol. Were you ever a student?
I know quite a few students. Many on the artier end of the spectrum are not exactly overworked
Boris Johnson says there is "no question that we are going to have to take tougher measures" to reduce the spread of a new variant of coronavirus, which he said was requiring "extra special vigilance".
Well bloody get on with it...
Yes this whole trailing of tougher measures encourages people to make the most of whatever limited freedoms they have available at the time.
Announcing tougher measures is one thing. Getting people to follow them after almost a year of this is quite another.
What frightens me is the power of the state and the unaccountable SAGE committee. A committee that is determined to hold on to the vast unaccountable influence it has, whatever happens with the virus.
I'm on SAGE, specifically 2 SAGE sub-groups. I write in a personal capacity.
I too am concerned at the power of the state, the executive, under the current government. Everything else you write is nonsense.
SAGE is not technically a committee. It's a group (thus the "G") with a floating membership, supported by the Government Office for Science. It exists at the whim of government. (There is additional scientific advice that Government receives through various other channels too.)
Is SAGE unaccountable? The "A" stands for "Advisory": SAGE only advises, Government makes decisions, and Government remains accountable to the voters through the normal functioning of democracy. The Government listens to SAGE advice: it sometimes follows it, it sometimes doesn't, it always has to do the work of turning advice into actionable policy. (When I talk to SAGE colleagues, one of the main topics of conversation is how much Government ignores what we're saying.) The main form of accountability for SAGE is through the accountability of the Government that calls SAGE and that makes all policy decisions.
SAGE members are also scientists: our work is open to the usual systems of accountability within science. We all publish on our research separate to what we say in SAGE, and such work goes through the usual peer review processes. SAGE minutes and reports are now made available online pretty quickly. You can go read them all. If we get the science wrong, we can be (and are) criticised. Scientists outside SAGE have opportunities to voice dissenting opinions, and frequently do so. As SAGE members, we have all been warned that we could be called to give evidence at any enquiries about the pandemic and that we should take care to preserve all correspondence etc.
SAGE membership certainly generates kudos, but it's not a paid position. We've all done umpteen unpaid hours of work for SAGE. All the scientists I know on SAGE wish the pandemic could be made to vanish. If things could go back to normal tomorrow, we would all cheer (and take long holidays). SAGE is not meant to be a permanent thing: it is for emergencies (the "E"). No-one presumes SAGE will continue beyond the life of the pandemic. The Government is already re-configuring how SAGE works precisely because it was never designed to run for as long as it has in this pandemic.
I am flattered to be on SAGE and hope my abilities as a researcher are of benefit to the country. If there's another pandemic, I would be happy to do service again. I have no illusions that I have any influence beyond my particular scientific expertise around pandemics.
362. I accept that oppression as a bar to extradition requires a high threshold. I also accept that there is a strong public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations and that this is an important factor to have in mind. However, I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
Since the District Judge found for the USA on most of the points of law - tricky to see how they can appeal this.
So, he voluntarily imprisoned himself in a small apartment for seven years, which made him go mad. And now he’s mad, he’s unfit to be deported to stand trial?
Did I get that right?
Yep...
I have heard it mooted that as a result of legal precedents around autistic people and rule breaking, that it is only a matter of time before someone is sued *for hiring* an autistic person who proceeds to break rules. The reasoning being
- A number of judgements that autistic people are predisposed to break rules/hack - A number of judgements that punishment would harm them. - Therefore hiring them broke the duty of care to protect information etc.... - This would "break through" anti-discrimination legislation, since there would be a reason for discriminating against them in employment.
It would be sad, stupid and ironic, if this happens.
I am quite sure that if this has been mooted, that quiet discrimination is already occurring.
That’s genuinely scary.
Yes, it is scary.
But what do you do, if you are hiring, say in an investment bank. Candidate A has autism (or appears to on interview), Candidate B doesn't.... You shouldn't discriminate, but if A is hired and it comes back on you....
Takes guts to take a risk like that.
For some roles being on the spectrum could count as a positive - certainly there have been reports to that effect in the past.
I have autistic children, I am no doubt on the spectrum myself but certain of those traits made me very good at the job I do - whilst admittingly making some other parts harder.
Indeed.
But if you are now classed, in effect, a naturally liable to break the rules?
*Mandatory* discrimination?
To be honest i'm MORE likely to follow the rules - unless the rules would require me to lie.
One of my sons (Aspergers) is exactly the same.
Yes, it is bollocks. But once a thing like this gets going.....
If hundreds of thousands of students are sitting around at home, going mad, why doesn’t HMG train them all up to be vaccinators?
They’re young, fit, smart, and the least likely to get ill. It will also allow them to socialise and flirt, at least a bit. So they don’t go mad. Win win.
As I pointed out earlier, the opportunity is already on the NHS Volunteer Responder page.
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
Maybe they should explain why none of their previous lockdowns have worked as expected before imposing another one.
What are you on about - lockdowns have worked.
Andy has a very selective memory on these matters. A graph showing their impact wont matter.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
Brexit isn't going to disappoint in material matters. It can't. Unless another useless money pit is invented to spew money into (there's Covid, but everywhere has that). Looking for it and hoping that it will is going to result in a lot of angst and disappointment for you - I seriously wouldn't bother.
The Thin Deal is expected to cost us significant GDP whereas Brexit was sold as a nice little earner. So that's quite a gap to cover up with smoke & mirrors. I agree it's unlikely that millions of Leavers will be crying foul but there might well be something insidious.
Everything Brexity is going to be totally overshadowed by Covid for the next year - or more. If we escape and the vaccines work there will be a surge of optimism and a GDP bounce back - who cares about Brexit?
If we slog on and the virus stays the same or worsens then - who cares about Brexit?
By the time the fog of the pandemic has cleared Brexit will probably seem quite trivial, except to the small hardcore on either side.
I doubt it. In five years we will be talking a lot more about Brexit than Covid.
In five years we won't be talking about either. We will be talking about whatever new issue has come to the fore.
In 30 years we will still be talking about the damage covid restrictions did to our finances. The children and grandchildren whose educations we are busy wrecking, specifically. They will have to pay the money back. Or they will be suffering the consequences of a grossly devalued currency.
For some incomprehensible reason you seem to be in a parallel universe where the deficit is due to the restrictions and not due to the pandemic.
In your world is Sweden not running a deficit this year? 🙄
What frightens me is the power of the state and the unaccountable SAGE committee. A committee that is determined to hold on to the vast unaccountable influence it has, whatever happens with the virus.
I'm on SAGE, specifically 2 SAGE sub-groups. I write in a personal capacity.
I too am concerned at the power of the state, the executive, under the current government. Everything else you write is nonsense.
SAGE is not technically a committee. It's a group (thus the "G") with a floating membership, supported by the Government Office for Science. It exists at the whim of government. (There is additional scientific advice that Government receives through various other channels too.)
Is SAGE unaccountable? The "A" stands for "Advisory": SAGE only advises, Government makes decisions, and Government remains accountable to the voters through the normal functioning of democracy. The Government listens to SAGE advice: it sometimes follows it, it sometimes doesn't, it always has to do the work of turning advice into actionable policy. (When I talk to SAGE colleagues, one of the main topics of conversation is how much Government ignores what we're saying.) The main form of accountability for SAGE is through the accountability of the Government that calls SAGE and that makes all policy decisions.
SAGE members are also scientists: our work is open to the usual systems of accountability within science. We all publish on our research separate to what we say in SAGE, and such work goes through the usual peer review processes. SAGE minutes and reports are now made available online pretty quickly. You can go read them all. If we get the science wrong, we can be (and are) criticised. Scientists outside SAGE have opportunities to voice dissenting opinions, and frequently do so. As SAGE members, we have all been warned that we could be called to give evidence at any enquiries about the pandemic and that we should take care to preserve all correspondence etc.
SAGE membership certainly generates kudos, but it's not a paid position. We've all done umpteen unpaid hours of work for SAGE. All the scientists I know on SAGE wish the pandemic could be made to vanish. If things could go back to normal tomorrow, we would all cheer (and take long holidays). SAGE is not meant to be a permanent thing: it is for emergencies (the "E"). No-one presumes SAGE will continue beyond the life of the pandemic. The Government is already re-configuring how SAGE works precisely because it was never designed to run for as long as it has in this pandemic.
I am flattered to be on SAGE and hope my abilities as a researcher are of benefit to the country. If there's another pandemic, I would be happy to do service again. I have no illusions that I have any influence beyond my particular scientific expertise around pandemics.
I really don't know what the government are waiting for re a new lockdown.
They have loads of political cover in terms of Cockey Covid and now SA Covid, to brush off claims of but but but you said no new national lockdown ever. And also the polling shows repeatedly that the majority of the public urge on the side of caution when it comes to further restrictions.
I don't dislike Boris personally, but really the weekend interview where he rambled about quite possibly introducing unspecified stricter measures in parts of the country in a few weeks' time showed him at his very worst. This sort of vacillation actually encourages people to get out and enjoy relative freedom while it lasts, which is exactly the wrong message. We don't need to be gently eased into restrictions like 5-year-olds. Get on with with it!
I am no Boris fan and I think lots of his positions are purely playing to gallery, but I think when it comes to lockdown it is something he genuinely finds goes against his beliefs. All polling says he would get loads of credit for strict lockdown measures, he has loads of political cover, it is advantageous for his premiership to do it, but he clearly finds it nearly impossible to do.
We know he will get there eventually, its a matter of how long and then how many days after he announces it, that the new measures come in. It really should have been announced Saturday, for today.
But if that's the reason I don't think it paints Johnson in any better light. There are no mainstream politicians in any party who relish the notion of closing schools and stopping people doing things like seeing their friends and family. From what I glean, the virus situation and short term prognosis is dire and there is not a shadow of a doubt that we will soon be in a Tier 5+ national lockdown which will last for many weeks.
I am no doubt seething with anti BJ prejudice, but I think his deep unwillingness to front up bad news is more of a factor than any problems with his beliefs (whatever they might be). Very unChurchillian.
And it's a shame. Through gritted synapses I recognize that he is gifted with an ability to reach people. He could deliver the "At this time of great peril for our nation we must make a supreme national effort" speech that imo is required. But no. Cometh the Hour flunketh the Man. So far anyway. Maybe this evening or tomorrow. Or Wednesday.
Yep, in the karaoke Beatles stakes, BJ could probably manage a Love Me Do, but Let It Be way beyond him.
Q, if Churchill had not given his 'Blood, toil, tears and sweat' & 'We shall fight on the beaches' speeches, would it have made a material difference to the outcome of the war?
Probably not. I tend to the "structure over agency" side of these things, to quote something I got a tenuous hold of from a dense work a long time ago. But ironically, I think the big inspirational speech would maybe make more difference in something like this than a war. Because it's so much about people's micro behaviour here at home as opposed to macro military logistics overseas.
The speeches themselves is one thing, but Churchill being the kind of guy who gave that sort of speech probably made a bit of a difference.
Pl;us it depends what you mean by outcome. Eventual defeat of Hitler was nailed on pretty much from the outset, but the non-availability of GB as Airstrip One in 1944 would have complicated the fightback.
I think I can go with that. Certainly he was more up to the task than most would have been. And even if the Great Man effect was exaggerated - which I think it probably was - Nations do need myths and this one, Churchill, fight them on the beaches, never have so many etc, is one I don't mind partaking of. Leave it there, though, is key, as a noble part of our history, do not use it as a frame of reference for wholly different and far more prosaic things such as leaving the European Single Market or increasing our fishing quotas.
If hundreds of thousands of students are sitting around at home, going mad, why doesn’t HMG train them all up to be vaccinators?
They’re young, fit, smart, and the least likely to get ill. It will also allow them to socialise and flirt, at least a bit. So they don’t go mad. Win win.
yeah, at least look into it
Students have exams to revise for. They're not sitting around doing nothing.
Yeah, for the best, we shouldn't think of alternative solutions.
So that's Germany and the US previously critical of the policy probably set to introduce it. Good to see them make the same u turn I did, the maths is absolutely undeniable having done it this morning. Single jabs give 30-40% more coverage at 70% efficacy for a single jab, if it's as high as 90% as is being investigated then it really is a no brainer.
We will genuinely be world leading on this policy innovation for better or worse.
Pfizer one appears to be 52% efficacy after first dose... so probably pretty debatable for that one whether there is much benefit to single jab approach https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826
That 52% is very much a lower bound, given the short gap between onset of immune response to the first shot, and the booster shot at 21 days in the trial - it takes a good couple of weeks for the antibody response fully to rev up, and most of the cases in the vaccine group occurred before 12 days after the initial shot: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=RP
I also note they didn't make much of this statistic: Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient...
Thinking about the prospects of the NHS overloading (which is very plausibly imminent), I had a quick and dirty look at the numbers involved.
At the moment, it looks like a little over 40,000 cases declared against specimen date seems to equate to about 3000 hospitalisations per day. Using Malmesbury's figures for proportion of hospitalisation per age category, the long-running percentage of hospitalisations that die (27.8% in a scarily reliable average during the second wave) and the figures for the proportion of each age band that make up the deaths, and assuming it will scale up as the declared cases scale up, you get this table:
All laden with assumptions, of course (such as: are we catching a constant fraction of the true cases in our reported cases?)
We can then assume that deaths per age band will rise if hospital assistance isn't available, towards the hospitalised numbers (This is a more fraught assumption. On the one hand, not all deaths from covid are in hospital. On the other, not everyone hospitalised would die without help, although we do know they were hospitalised for a reason. I'd suspect the number would go from around 100% of the hospitalised figures at the eldest end of the scale to a distinctly smaller fraction at the bottom - although I doubt it would ever go much below a quarter, given that around a sixth of those children hospitalised need ICU, and we'd assume everyone who needs intensive care is a goner without support. That would leave as many as 90% of hospitalised children who didn't need ICU recovering without any support, which would seem optimistic, so that would be a top end)
We can use a rough rule of thumb that 1500 hospitalisations per day can be reliably coped with (when they reach saturation), as under 1500 has seen hospital populations descending and over 1500 has seen them climbing. Rough rule of thumb.
Assume triage is done to prioritise the youngest. Count upwards on the hospitalisations numbers on the daily row until you get to 1500. Every row above that has deaths actually tending towards hospitalisation numbers rather than actual deaths. (Further source of error: this will not be uniform over the country. Some areas might need to triage down to a third or quarter; others may not need to triage at all)
Make whatever assumptions you see fit on vaccination numbers, counting down. If you assume all over 85s are protected, remove this row. All over 75s, do the same. And so on. (Not all will be protected - maybe around 70%, but we're talking rough rule of thumb)
The scary thing is - if we level out at 40,000 cases reported per day, AND somehow the hospitals don't oversaturate, we're still looking at around 25,000 deaths in January.
Remember that the deaths column on the table as it stands is on the assumption that the hospitals don't overload. The hospitalisations figure would show the absolute maximum if all hospitals turned everyone away (not happening).
Great work.
A question: is there an argument for diverting resources from testing to vaccination provision?
Putting it another way, do we gain more by 1) identifying tens of thousands of positive cases (which represent only a small percentage of the overall tests conducted; the vast majority of tests result in a negative result/ or positive but no significant health effects) or 2) by significantly ramping up vaccine delivery, thus vaccinating more people more quickly?
Not sure. Even the proportion of cases we do pick up gives us data on what is happening and where. Doing that would effectively mean that we choose to blind ourselves and go for vaccine delivery instead.
I'm not convinced that it's a binary option, anyway. We surely have considerable logistics capability (and can bring in assistance on that, anyway) and if we had 20,000 vaccinators giving 50 jabs per day at the sharp end (yes, I know, but pun not really intended), we could sustain 7 million injections per week.
Interesting data which backs up the hypothesis I have been advancing. Punters in these largely red wall swing states think the government is led by someone who will lie to them, will make the rich richer, won't fund the NHS and won't help them or their area level up.
But they will support him because Brexit. The prize overrules all other considerations - why? Because when you have been sold a catch-all magic wand solution to all your ills you cling onto the illusion even if you know its a lie because thats all you have left.
The previous thread asked how Labour win these voters back. As long as the political paradigm is based on opinions of Brexit I don't see how they can. Yes, you may be offering to tell them the truth and level up and invest and all the other things they want which they know the government not only aren't doing but lying to them about.
But Brexit...
This is why Labour is desperate for the topic of Brexit to go away, while the Tories want to keep it in the news. One question I have is whether bad news stories about Brexit might help Labour in the long run, by gradually chipping away at Red Wall support for Brexit, even if in the short run bringing the topic up helps the Tories. I suspect the answer is yes, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is a big question. Perhaps the biggest. If - or let's face it when - Brexit disappoints on material matters, will the Buzz that many Red Wall leavers feel about "taking back control" from Brussels fade away? If it does, then this plus the lack of "unpatriotic" Corbyn should see Labour bouncing back up there. But a cautionary note is that these seats have been trending Con for some time.
People hate to admit that they were wrong. Weirdly, I think this is particularly true when they have been lied to. So for a long time I suspect that the anti-Brexit message will fall on deaf ears, and will put people's backs up. On the other hand, they are not going to hear the message if nobody is making it. You are right that the trend in many of these seats is against Labour anyway - eg mining seats are transforming from industrial to rural areas - with plenty of newcomers including some white flight from Northern cities who are not going to be Labour voters. Labour doesn't need to win all of these seats, and won't even in a landslide win.
Then we get back to Starmer's approach; Brexit has been done, there's no debate, use the mechanisms in Boris's terrible deal to make it work better for people. (Whisper it, but that's going to mean closer engagement with the EU as it is, and acknowledging that whilst the sovereignty of the UK and EU are of equal type and status, they are not of equal mass.)
In the meantime, think tanks can think, and fringe politicians can keep the flame alive. Not dignified, and not much fun for the impatient, but it is the only way for now.
I think that is about right. I would add that every so often it would make sense to lob in a grenade whenever a particularly egregious Brexit development emerges. A kind of more in sorrow than anger approach - "unfortunately the government's arrogant and extreme approach to implementing Brexit has led to this..."; "I don't think this is the kind of Brexit people voted for"; "Brexit isn't working out like we were promised"; "Brexit isn't working". Just keep chipping away.
Give it a month before "STFU, you whining loser twats" becomes the popular response.
That will be the immediate response, it won't take a month. But over time as the gap between Brexit the lie and Brexit the reality becomes more obvious then it will slowly gain traction. Alternatively, if Brexit turns out to be great then everyone is a winner. Personally I don't think that is very likely.
On the other hand, our maximal sovereignty Brexit deal sets up a long-term strategic problem for Labour. Starmer can offer the country closer economic ties with the EU, but only meaningfully so if we accept the four freedoms in full once again.
How will 'Labour wants to hand back control of our borders to the EU' play in an election campaign?
Not yet he doesn't. What Starmer needs to find is specific things where the disadvantages of pulling away from the EU obviously outweigh the benefits. Parallel regulations of boring things like chemicals is expensive and pointless. Police systems and the European Arrest Warrant are probably on the list as well. The trickier bits, like freedom of movement, will be for politicians whose names we might not even know yet. (But that might be fewer years than we think. Sunak and Starmer only entered parliament in 2015.)
Because even if the B-thing goes well, there will be people who lose out from the process. The only time you get all upside and no downside is when you're in the middle of being conned.
And should those who lose out be expected to accept "Suck it up, fifty-two percent" forever?
Comments
Q, if Churchill had not given his 'Blood, toil, tears and sweat' & 'We shall fight on the beaches' speeches, would it have made a material difference to the outcome of the war?
- A number of judgements that autistic people are predisposed to break rules/hack
- A number of judgements that punishment would harm them.
- Therefore hiring them broke the duty of care to protect information etc....
- This would "break through" anti-discrimination legislation, since there would be a reason for discriminating against them in employment.
It would be sad, stupid and ironic, if this happens.
I am quite sure that if this has been mooted, that quiet discrimination is already occurring.
Finally.
Or if you want to keep them open do the simple things most other countries do. Demand negative PCR tests within 48 hours of boarding. Test on arrival. Mandatory hotel quarantine. Its been known since the Black Death that disease moves with people.
I agree with him here 100%. Hopefully the Government listens.
However, is 25,000 dead in January that ‘scary’. It sounds bad but we already know many thousands more are going to die of Covid, in the UK and across the world. And many of them will die in the worst month: January. Before the vaccines kick in.
Moreover, January is the worst months for deaths anyway, isn’t it? And 600,000 die in the UK in a ‘normal’ year.
What is truly scary is your downside prediction for January if the NHS crashes: 100,000 dead. That pushes towards a wartime scale of national trauma
I used data for the whole pandemic, from the ONS England data, to construct the table.
EDIT: Ah, I get what you mean.
Hmm - that does make a difference, but in which direction? Will the proportion of deaths against each age band change significantly, do you think? (That is: a higher proportion at the top, or levelling down a bit across the bands?)
If we slog on and the virus stays the same or worsens then - who cares about Brexit?
By the time the fog of the pandemic has cleared Brexit will probably seem quite trivial, except to the small hardcore on either side.
No doubt the lockdown sceptics will point at these numbers in 6 months' time and tell us that it wasn't that bad, whilst ignoring what is happening in hospitals. We are definitely teetering on the edge.
(Notwithstanding that he was SoS Health when the 2016 pandemic preparedness report recommendations got filed in the shredder).
But doses sat around not being used quickly will be a BIG political problem.
I hope he gets The Vid.
Though would not help my youngest daughter, we are currently trying to teach her to use the word I when she speaks. She currently uses the word me in all circumstances to refer to herself. "Can me have a cookie", "me is thirsty". It's cute but we correct her now to try and get her to learn and say it properly.
But what do you do, if you are hiring, say in an investment bank. Candidate A has autism (or appears to on interview), Candidate B doesn't.... You shouldn't discriminate, but if A is hired and it comes back on you....
Takes guts to take a risk like that.
Cons. looking awesome on those numbers, up three! It must be a combination of the vaccine, the deal and Boris saving Christmas. The net dropped point for Labour was Drakeford singularly failing to save Christmas here in Wales.
No covid and Macron has plenty more time and energy to play games with us.
Both of them certainly reduced infections, hospitalisations, and deaths.
The longer and more stringent one in March-May most of all.
Why do you think they didn’t?
Well bloody get on with it...
Do we have any idea why the French are a bunch of anti-vaxxers?
When attacking diving U Boats, aircraft had x seconds to make an attack before the U Boat could manoeuvre. After that it was better *not* to try it. Save the depth charges for another attack.
When implemented, it resulted in a drop in Ed* *and* an increase in Dn**
* Expenditure of death charges
** Number of dead Nazis.
How did they do 500 the other day, when the vaccine comes in packs of 1000 that quickly deteriorate once the pack is opened? Did half of them get thrown away?
I have autistic children, I am no doubt on the spectrum myself but certain of those traits made me very good at the job I do - whilst admittingly making some other parts harder.
Pfizer one appears to be 52% efficacy after first dose... so probably pretty debatable for that one whether there is much benefit to single jab approach https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826
How will 'Labour wants to hand back control of our borders to the EU' play in an election campaign?
But if you are now classed, in effect, a naturally liable to break the rules?
*Mandatory* discrimination?
A very calm and reassuring presence.
Edit. Around 12:10 to 12:30 pm.
- “Lockdowns?”
“No, my car brakes. You won’t see ME wasting my time pressing the brakes when I need to slow down urgently.”
- “Ah. I think I’ll take an Uber.”
eg Nepal. Very reliant on a now-collapsed tourist economy. As a result it is facing famine, families are selling daughters, millions of already poor people are set to get poorer: so so sad.
https://www.ketto.org/fundraiser/funds-to-provide-basic-support
"This lack of trust in vaccines, despite overwhelming evidence that they are safe and effective, can be traced at least in part to the French government’s mishandling of a series of medical scares."
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/how-france-beat-parents-fear-measles-vaccine-336211
A question: is there an argument for diverting resources from testing to vaccination provision?
Putting it another way, do we gain more by 1) identifying tens of thousands of positive cases (which represent only a small percentage of the overall tests conducted; the vast majority of tests result in a negative result/ or positive but no significant health effects) or 2) by significantly ramping up vaccine delivery, thus vaccinating more people more quickly?
Pl;us it depends what you mean by outcome. Eventual defeat of Hitler was nailed on pretty much from the outset, but the non-availability of GB as Airstrip One in 1944 would have complicated the fightback.
I know quite a few students. Many on the artier end of the spectrum are not exactly overworked
Because his brother might be coming to the intersection as well...
https://twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1345800480144945152
It's not a complete no brainer, as there is perhaps a slightly increased risk of vaccine escape by virus mutation if the booster shot is too long delayed, but in the current circumstances that doesn't come near to outweighing the benefits of greater coverage.
One of my sons (Aspergers) is exactly the same.
I wouldn't mind queuing up for a few hours to get the vaccine once we have enough supply.
I too am concerned at the power of the state, the executive, under the current government. Everything else you write is nonsense.
SAGE is not technically a committee. It's a group (thus the "G") with a floating membership, supported by the Government Office for Science. It exists at the whim of government. (There is additional scientific advice that Government receives through various other channels too.)
Is SAGE unaccountable? The "A" stands for "Advisory": SAGE only advises, Government makes decisions, and Government remains accountable to the voters through the normal functioning of democracy. The Government listens to SAGE advice: it sometimes follows it, it sometimes doesn't, it always has to do the work of turning advice into actionable policy. (When I talk to SAGE colleagues, one of the main topics of conversation is how much Government ignores what we're saying.) The main form of accountability for SAGE is through the accountability of the Government that calls SAGE and that makes all policy decisions.
SAGE members are also scientists: our work is open to the usual systems of accountability within science. We all publish on our research separate to what we say in SAGE, and such work goes through the usual peer review processes. SAGE minutes and reports are now made available online pretty quickly. You can go read them all. If we get the science wrong, we can be (and are) criticised. Scientists outside SAGE have opportunities to voice dissenting opinions, and frequently do so. As SAGE members, we have all been warned that we could be called to give evidence at any enquiries about the pandemic and that we should take care to preserve all correspondence etc.
SAGE membership certainly generates kudos, but it's not a paid position. We've all done umpteen unpaid hours of work for SAGE. All the scientists I know on SAGE wish the pandemic could be made to vanish. If things could go back to normal tomorrow, we would all cheer (and take long holidays). SAGE is not meant to be a permanent thing: it is for emergencies (the "E"). No-one presumes SAGE will continue beyond the life of the pandemic. The Government is already re-configuring how SAGE works precisely because it was never designed to run for as long as it has in this pandemic.
I am flattered to be on SAGE and hope my abilities as a researcher are of benefit to the country. If there's another pandemic, I would be happy to do service again. I have no illusions that I have any influence beyond my particular scientific expertise around pandemics.
https://twitter.com/SaorAlba59/status/1345833082675470336?s=20
That includes giving vaccines.
In your world is Sweden not running a deficit this year? 🙄
Grade A -_-
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=RP
I also note they didn't make much of this statistic:
Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient...
So I don't think it's all that debatable, really.
Even the proportion of cases we do pick up gives us data on what is happening and where. Doing that would effectively mean that we choose to blind ourselves and go for vaccine delivery instead.
I'm not convinced that it's a binary option, anyway. We surely have considerable logistics capability (and can bring in assistance on that, anyway) and if we had 20,000 vaccinators giving 50 jabs per day at the sharp end (yes, I know, but pun not really intended), we could sustain 7 million injections per week.
Because even if the B-thing goes well, there will be people who lose out from the process. The only time you get all upside and no downside is when you're in the middle of being conned.
And should those who lose out be expected to accept "Suck it up, fifty-two percent" forever?