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.
Grade A -_-
By all means promote volunteering opportunities to students. No doubt there would be significant take-up, not least for CV purposes.
But I just wanted to highlight that students are not simply sitting around with nothing to do. We are still working towards hopefully successful future careers, albeit with significant hurdles to overcome at the moment.
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
There may be exams in early Jan but will be done by end of month, at latest.
We've just cancelled labs up to 25th Jan and expect to cancel more. That leaves a few hours of lectures per day (and none on a Wednesday). Not all students will take it up. It need not be a full time job.
If we have a shortage of hands to do this, then I see literally no reason why you don't target groups that you know have their hands free right now.
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.
We roll out the tanks as a distraction whilst this sort of psychological warfare is slips in. All part of the plan. Next step is to declare various famous Scots as secretly having been English the whole time
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'm a student right now.
Touché
But I do know quite a few students who have a lot of spare time
That is reminding me of the government's error in not stopping flights from Spain and Italy when other countries were doing it March , but potentially worse.
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.
Gupta has been absolutely the worst. She has made definite statements that are demonstrably untrue at the time of making them, let alone the nonsense predictions.
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...
So I don't think it's all that debatable, really.
The obsession with % of people who catch a cold type disease after the vaccine rather than the % catching a serious disease is very strange. All I want is to avoid the severe disease, I am going to catch some colds/coronaviruses/flus anyway, whether it happens to be a covid 19 strain or not is of little importance if it is very unlikely to become serious.
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.
Thank you for this, though someone who insists a group is unaccountable no matter how many times its pointed out the decision makers, well, make the decisions, not the advisers, is unlikely to listen.
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
There may be exams in early Jan but will be done by end of month, at latest.
We've just cancelled labs up to 25th Jan and expect to cancel more. That leaves a few hours of lectures per day (and none on a Wednesday). Not all students will take it up. It need not be a full time job.
If we have a shortage of hands to do this, then I see literally no reason why you don't target groups that you know have their hands free right now.
LOL isn't even the bluddy start.
Better would be to reverse it, though that would need government action. All universities to reopen for onsite learning the week after next, for all students who have been vaccinated at the university health centre. The queue's over there.
The age-based priority list should be torn up and jabs given based on whatever's easiest. Go where most people are, like universities, factories and shopping centres, not worry about getting housebound 80-year-olds to a car park five miles 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?
And he's coming out of Belmarsh into Tier 5 lockdown.
I hope he gets The Vid.
Does anyone have him in the pool?
No. I made a trophy out of a broken BMW piston before I broke my wrist and it is sat on my desk awaiting a lucky winner.
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.
A serious reasoning error is to assume that if there is no data, the prior probability of an event or state (in a Bayesian sense) is 50/50 until data comes available. The prior can be based on reasoning before any data is available. I think that is what Wiblin is referring to.
The probability that the Pfizer vaccine lowers transmission as well as symptoms is greater than 50% by reasoning about viral load and how the immune systems work, before any data on transmission is available. It is not 50/50. Of course, when the data does become available it will change the posterior probability (in either direction) according to Bayes.
Under the short list of circumstances that render an individual eligible for a free Covid test it says " You can also get a test for someone you live with if they have symptoms."
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
Eek. I think that's a definite no given the additional mutation chances you give the virus with the partial protection.
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.
Gupta has been absolutely the worst. She has made definite statements that are demonstrably untrue at the time of making them, let alone the nonsense predictions.
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.
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.
If bringing attention to specific negative impacts of Thin Brexit - together with a proposal to remediate them with a better, closer, richer Deal - elicits a majority response from the public of "fuck off you loser twats", then I'm afraid our politics will have been corrupted beyond redemption. I'm not there with that yet, sunny jim that I am. But, yes, it's possible.
Interesting. |Exactly the same price and weight as the Scottish haggis they sell. And tyhey don't provide a pic of the actual British haggis so one can't judge if there is any difference.
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.
Gupta has been absolutely the worst. She has made definite statements that are demonstrably untrue at the time of making them, let alone the nonsense predictions.
Dont even know why that would upset. Taking something from somewhere else and doing it better and making it your own is fine.
Now, anyone for a Tikka Masala?
Quite, but the combinastion is odd. You don't go to an Indian restaurant for a Great English Curry (even if that is exactly what a tikka masala is). It's the marketing that puzzles me. What is the market?
Makes you wonder where that is produced. Melton Mowbray?
Fife apparently
"Interesting" marketing, in that case. Wonder why?
International market? I feel like for that product youd go with the Scottish angle regardless but I seem to recall reading about some other foodstuff which was branded with union jacks as more familiar for international audiences.
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
Eek. I think that's a definite no given the additional mutation chances you give the virus with the partial protection.
Even assuming a delayed booster 'gives the virus additional mutation chances' (which is not proven), why would that necessarily give the virus greater mutation chances than not having the vaccine at all ?
Also, the 52%, as I pointed out above, is a somewhat misleading figure for 'efficacy'.
Dont even know why that would upset. Taking something from somewhere else and doing it better and making it your own is fine.
Now, anyone for a Tikka Masala?
Seeing a student protesting about cultural appropriation always intrigues me , because whatever and wherever they are studying, if you take the culturally appropriated stuff out of the syllabus that's 97% of it gone. It is virtually the defining characteristic of the human race.
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.
Gupta has been absolutely the worst. She has made definite statements that are demonstrably untrue at the time of making them, let alone the nonsense predictions.
If Karol Sikora told me it was Monday, I'd check.
With a one in seven chance of being right that would be one of his more accurate pronouncements.
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.
Thank you for that.
My friend`s brother is a public sector worker. He has had four periods off work so far by actively ensuring he is within close proximity of someone who has tested positive, thereby being "caught" by track and trace. My friend, also a public sector worker, is spitting feathers about it. It make my blood boil that someone like that is being paid 100% of salary for not working when guys like you on SAGE are working your nads off occupying unpaid positions.
Dont even know why that would upset. Taking something from somewhere else and doing it better and making it your own is fine.
Now, anyone for a Tikka Masala?
Quite, but the combinastion is odd. You don't go to an Indian restaurant for a Great English Curry (even if that is exactly what a tikka masala is). It's the marketing that puzzles me. What is the market?
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'm a student right now.
Touché
But I do know quite a few students who have a lot of spare time
Dont even know why that would upset. Taking something from somewhere else and doing it better and making it your own is fine.
Now, anyone for a Tikka Masala?
Quite, but the combinastion is odd. You don't go to an Indian restaurant for a Great English Curry (even if that is exactly what a tikka masala is). It's the marketing that puzzles me. What is the market?
In much of the world, the Saltire has the same recognition level as the flag of North Holland.
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.
People who trot this one out mean that Lockdowns have not eradicated the virus. Which is true but is rather like saying that some bloke's heart transplant has not worked because his dick is still the same size.
Well it isn't, not really, but we're short of anagrams today.
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.
Churchill's speeches had another audience across the Atlantic. Churchill saw from the start that to beat Germany, we should need to involve the hitherto-isolationist United States in the war.
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...
So I don't think it's all that debatable, really.
The obsession with % of people who catch a cold type disease after the vaccine rather than the % catching a serious disease is very strange. All I want is to avoid the severe disease, I am going to catch some colds/coronaviruses/flus anyway, whether it happens to be a covid 19 strain or not is of little importance if it is very unlikely to become serious.
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 think the downside prediction on that is, fortunately, unlikely. I ran through a plausible scenario:
Week 1: Hospitalisations from an average of 40,000 reported cases daily, negligible benefit yet seen from vaccination, NHS copes. Deaths: c. 6000
Week 2: Hosptalisations from an average of 60,000 reported cases daily, half of all 85+ are now immune, NHS can no longer quite keep up. An extra number of deaths equal to half the difference between hospitalisations and deaths for both categories 75-84 and 85+. Deaths: c. 8000
Week 3: Hospitalisations from an average of 80,000 reported cases daily, all 85+ now immune and a quarter of 75-84 year olds. Triage results in an extra number of deaths equal to three quarters of the difference between hospitalisations and deaths in categories 65-74 and 75-84 and a quarter of the difference in categories 45-64. Deaths: c. 15,000
Week 4: Hospitalisations from an average of 100,000 reported cases daily, all 85+ and three quarters of 75-84 now immune (and a considerable number above these have had first jabs but not yet got protection). Triage results in an extra number of deaths equal to three quarters of the difference between hospitalisations and deaths in categories 65-74 and 75-84 and a half of the difference in categories 45-64. Deaths: c. 11,000 (Needs around 4.5-5 million to have had first jabs by middle of the month. With over a million jabbed to date, I think that's plausible, even with a slowish start)
After that, the vaccinations really start having an effect. It's significant that (assuming we are at around 5 million jabbed by around the middle of the month), the deaths finally start falling even with infections still slowly increasing (by a quarter, indicating an R of around 1.15 by then) and the NHS hugely overloaded.
40,000 deaths in four weeks, but starting to decline by the end of January - IF we get our fingers out. And IF restrictions at least slow the spread significantly. That's the vaccination race in a nutshell. If we keep accelerating on the vaccination front, February would look a lot better
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.
A serious reasoning error is to assume that if there is no data, the prior probability of an event or state (in a Bayesian sense) is 50/50 until data comes available. The prior can be based on reasoning before any data is available. I think that is what Wiblin is referring to.
The probability that the Pfizer vaccine lowers transmission as well as symptoms is greater than 50% by reasoning about viral load and how the immune systems work, before any data on transmission is available. It is not 50/50. Of course, when the data does become available it will change the posterior probability (in either direction) according to Bayes.
Not to mention the effect of previous vaccines on other diseases.
We roll out the tanks as a distraction whilst this sort of psychological warfare is slips in. All part of the plan. Next step is to declare various famous Scots as secretly having been English the whole time
And providing proof that "whisky" was actually Japanese all along....
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.
Gupta has been absolutely the worst. She has made definite statements that are demonstrably untrue at the time of making them, let alone the nonsense predictions.
Yeadon's even worse. His "predictions" are invariably a garbled and misrepresented mess to start with, his pronouncements on conditional probability would shame and embarrass any first year in any scientific or mathematical discipline (and this man holds a doctorate!), and his response to the vaccines pointed squarely at him being deliberately dishonest and misleading.
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.
People who trot this one out mean that Lockdowns have not eradicated the virus. Which is true but is rather like saying that some bloke's heart transplant has not worked because his dick is still the same size.
Well it isn't, not really, but we're short of anagrams today.
I think people who say lockdowns don`t work are doubtful that there is sufficient justification for them over and above similar social distancing that could be achieved via government advice rather than by more authoritarian measures. This is, of course, an arguable claim.
If someone is arguing that additional social distancing doesn`t reduce virus transmission then they are bonkers.
As I`ve said before, arguing against lockdown measures based on philosophical principle is one thing, resorting to pseudo-science is another.
Ahead of the Georgian US Senate runoffs tomorrow and Trump's rally in the state tonight, Purdue says taping Trump's call was 'disgusting' and he supports those of his fellow Republicans who will stand with Trump and object to the count of the EC votes tomorrow.
Loeffler however said she still had not decided whether to join them in objecting or not
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 think the downside prediction on that is, fortunately, unlikely. I ran through a plausible scenario:
Week 1: Hospitalisations from an average of 40,000 reported cases daily, negligible benefit yet seen from vaccination, NHS copes. Deaths: c. 6000
Week 2: Hosptalisations from an average of 60,000 reported cases daily, half of all 85+ are now immune, NHS can no longer quite keep up. An extra number of deaths equal to half the difference between hospitalisations and deaths for both categories 75-84 and 85+. Deaths: c. 8000
Week 3: Hospitalisations from an average of 80,000 reported cases daily, all 85+ now immune and a quarter of 75-84 year olds. Triage results in an extra number of deaths equal to three quarters of the difference between hospitalisations and deaths in categories 65-74 and 75-84 and a quarter of the difference in categories 45-64. Deaths: c. 15,000
Week 4: Hospitalisations from an average of 100,000 reported cases daily, all 85+ and three quarters of 75-84 now immune (and a considerable number above these have had first jabs but not yet got protection). Triage results in an extra number of deaths equal to three quarters of the difference between hospitalisations and deaths in categories 65-74 and 75-84 and a half of the difference in categories 45-64. Deaths: c. 11,000 (Needs around 4.5-5 million to have had first jabs by middle of the month. With over a million jabbed to date, I think that's plausible, even with a slowish start)
After that, the vaccinations really start having an effect. It's significant that (assuming we are at around 5 million jabbed by around the middle of the month), the deaths finally start falling even with infections still slowly increasing (by a quarter, indicating an R of around 1.15 by then) and the NHS hugely overloaded.
40,000 deaths in four weeks, but starting to decline by the end of January - IF we get our fingers out. And IF restrictions at least slow the spread significantly. That's the vaccination race in a nutshell. If we keep accelerating on the vaccination front, February would look a lot better
It’s weird saying ‘40,000 deaths is encouraging’ but it could be seen that way. IF, as you hope, February sees a notable improvement. That means we have just four grisly weeks to endure, before we sense the light returning.
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
Normal yearly deaths run at between 520,000 and 540,000. 2018 which saw a lot of excess winter deaths due to flu and excess cold was 539,000 for the year.
The figures for the last 2 weeks of the year are not yet released but currently we are looking at 592,000 deaths for 2020. That is an excess of between 60,000 and 70,000 and the final total will be somewhere around 80,000 excess deaths.
I'm going to start working on Welsh haggis. But not very quickly.
'First catch your sheep'
Well that bit should be a dawdle..
Seaweed steeped in beer, stuffed with bara brith. In keeping with the times, Welsh haggis will be vegan.
That actually sounds alright. Must admit that the veggie haggis I've tried has been a bit rubbish, maybe making something new rather than trying to reproduce what it's not is a better option.
THey are wrong. It was invented by the Polynesians, as any fule kno.
What I'm more concerned about is the appelation controlee element of food production and marketing post Brexit.
I think that stuff is agreed in the deal? ie we will recognise champagne and they recognise Jersey royals
I do hope so. I rather lost track.
Pretty sure it is in there. It would be surprising if it isn’t, it’s in everyone’s interest, esp the EU which exports more protected food and drink to us, than vice versa
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
Eek. I think that's a definite no given the additional mutation chances you give the virus with the partial protection.
Even assuming a delayed booster 'gives the virus additional mutation chances' (which is not proven), why would that necessarily give the virus greater mutation chances than not having the vaccine at all ?
Also, the 52%, as I pointed out above, is a somewhat misleading figure for 'efficacy'.
I'm thinking if the virus gets a partial foothold with a longish fight between the virus and the vaccine-induced immune response, that provides a greater chance for mutations that evade the vaccine than if it was killed off with 95% reliability.
Thanks for pointing out that the 52% shouldn't be taken at face value.
For those thinking things are bad in the UK - here in Spain no detailed information on cases because of the holidays! However, figures on the rise again. Vaccinations way behind schedule - apparently each jab requires a doctor assessment, prescription and then injection by a registered nurse. Mañana? Maybe a little longer this time. And to make matters worse we're having rain for the first time since October this w/e. The grass is definitely browner over here!
Ever the academic, I can recommend the following book about the blitz:
"Citizens of London" by Lynne Olson
Read it and weep.
On the subject of war porn, might I recommend for an American take, The Splendid and The Vile, by Erik Larsen? It is a popular rather than academic account of 1940 and 41, so covering the blitz. It reminds us that Churchill was treated with caution by Americans because he was often drunk, as well as by the wider Conservative Party for whom he had been serially disloyal, defecting and redefecting but still attackin Conservative government policy on a range of issues throughout the 1930s.
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 agree with you short term but not so much thereafter. I think Brexit is going to take a sabbatical - and would have done even without Covid - but will then be back. Not with quite the heat, that is over, but with still some considerable clout as an issue. I also think the "values" defining aspect of it will prove stubborn to treatment, especially since one side, the Cons, don't want to treat it. Quite the opposite.
Ahead of the Georgian US Senate runoffs tomorrow and Trump's rally in the state tonight, Purdue says taping Trump's call was 'disgusting' and he supports those of his fellow Republicans who will stand with Trump and object to the count of the EC votes tomorrow.
Loeffler however said she still had not decided whether to join them in objecting or not
"Danish firm DFDS launch new direct cargo service between Ireland & France to bypass the UK. The first ship today carried over 100 trucks & the service is already over-subscribed. Hauliers say the route is longer but avoids Brexit red-tape they would otherwise experience on the UK route."
"Danish firm DFDS launch new direct cargo service between Ireland & France to bypass the UK. The first ship today carried over 100 trucks & the service is already over-subscribed. Hauliers say the route is longer but avoids Brexit red-tape they would otherwise experience on the UK route."
Suppose it will keep the queues down!
Keeps the traffic down on UK roads. No issue with that.
Look at the picture. Boris is in his standard hospital photo-op poise, jacket off, tie tucked in, sleeves rolled up as if he has just delivered a baby by emergency caesarian section in the hospital carpark.
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
Eek. I think that's a definite no given the additional mutation chances you give the virus with the partial protection.
Even assuming a delayed booster 'gives the virus additional mutation chances' (which is not proven), why would that necessarily give the virus greater mutation chances than not having the vaccine at all ?
Also, the 52%, as I pointed out above, is a somewhat misleading figure for 'efficacy'.
I'm thinking if the virus gets a partial foothold with a longish fight between the virus and the vaccine-induced immune response, that provides a greater chance for mutations that evade the vaccine than if it was killed off with 95% reliability.
Thanks for pointing out that the 52% shouldn't be taken at face value.
But my question was in what way is that different or worse than a longish fight between the virus and a naive (unvaccinated) immune response ?
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 agree with you short term but not so much thereafter. I think Brexit is going to take a sabbatical - and would have done even without Covid - but will then be back. Not with quite the heat, that is over, but with still some considerable clout as an issue. I also think the "values" defining aspect of it will prove stubborn to treatment, especially since one side, the Cons, don't want to treat it. Quite the opposite.
It won’t disappear. But it will become a second order issue that occasionally spikes. Like, say, “law and order”.
The Swiss don’t obsess about their relationship with the EU, it’s not a front page headline, daily. But it does sometimes surge, then it retreats again to the obscure biz pages.
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.
If bringing attention to specific negative impacts of Thin Brexit - together with a proposal to remediate them with a better, closer, richer Deal - elicits a majority response from the public of "fuck off you loser twats", then I'm afraid our politics will have been corrupted beyond redemption. I'm not there with that yet, sunny jim that I am. But, yes, it's possible.
Identifying a 'problem' and providing a 'solution' is one thing.
Banging on about Brexit every opportunity like this is something else: 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.
There's no need to say nonsense like "Brexit isn't working" - if you have a problem and a solution then you say "this isn't working and we should do that to fix it". Then it is a case of this and that which you are debating rather than trying to refight Brexit battles.
The problem is so far nobody seems to have identified a this which needs fixing, nor a that which needs implementing, so its easier to be whinging loser twats instead.
"Danish firm DFDS launch new direct cargo service between Ireland & France to bypass the UK. The first ship today carried over 100 trucks & the service is already over-subscribed. Hauliers say the route is longer but avoids Brexit red-tape they would otherwise experience on the UK route."
Suppose it will keep the queues down!
Keeps the traffic down on UK roads. No issue with that.
Ever the academic, I can recommend the following book about the blitz:
"Citizens of London" by Lynne Olson
Read it and weep.
On the subject of war porn, might I recommend for an American take, The Splendid and The Vile, by Erik Larsen? It is a popular rather than academic account of 1940 and 41, so covering the blitz. It reminds us that Churchill was treated with caution by Americans because he was often drunk, as well as by the wider Conservative Party for whom he had been serially disloyal, defecting and redefecting but still attackin Conservative government policy on a range of issues throughout the 1930s.
I didn't realise that his drunkenness was that widely known at that stage. I am surprised, given the absence of the ubiquitous videos which outed Juncker.
I understand 1940 America was strongly anti-Japan and much more ambivalent about Germany.
Dont even know why that would upset. Taking something from somewhere else and doing it better and making it your own is fine.
Now, anyone for a Tikka Masala?
Seeing a student protesting about cultural appropriation always intrigues me , because whatever and wherever they are studying, if you take the culturally appropriated stuff out of the syllabus that's 97% of it gone. It is virtually the defining characteristic of the human race.
"Danish firm DFDS launch new direct cargo service between Ireland & France to bypass the UK. The first ship today carried over 100 trucks & the service is already over-subscribed. Hauliers say the route is longer but avoids Brexit red-tape they would otherwise experience on the UK route."
Suppose it will keep the queues down!
Traffic and road wear too. Overall probably not a horrendous thing to happen.
Holyhead might become a bit of a wasteland though (if it isn't already). Reopen Rio Tinto (as was) and build Wylfa II?
Comments
But I just wanted to highlight that students are not simply sitting around with nothing to do. We are still working towards hopefully successful future careers, albeit with significant hurdles to overcome at the moment.
We've just cancelled labs up to 25th Jan and expect to cancel more. That leaves a few hours of lectures per day (and none on a Wednesday). Not all students will take it up. It need not be a full time job.
If we have a shortage of hands to do this, then I see literally no reason why you don't target groups that you know have their hands free right now.
LOL isn't even the bluddy start.
https://twitter.com/arthistorynews/status/1345137365325651974
But I do know quite a few students who have a lot of spare time
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/01/03/threat-national-covid-lockdown-looms/
It is the 4th of the month.
My house is on fire. I might ring the fire brigade by tea time, sources close to me have suggested. To the Daily fcking Torygraph.
Complete despair.
https://www.thehaggis.com/shop/haggis/the-great-british-haggis/#:~:text=As with the very origins,addition to the haggis range.
Haggis was invented by the English, not the Scottish, says historian.
Haggis was invented by the English before being hijacked by Scottish nationalists, a leading food historian has claimed.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/5960237/Haggis-was-invented-by-the-English-not-the-Scottish-says-historian.html
What I'm more concerned about is the appelation controlee element of food production and marketing post Brexit.
The age-based priority list should be torn up and jabs given based on whatever's easiest. Go where most people are, like universities, factories and shopping centres, not worry about getting housebound 80-year-olds to a car park five miles away.
The probability that the Pfizer vaccine lowers transmission as well as symptoms is greater than 50% by reasoning about viral load and how the immune systems work, before any data on transmission is available. It is not 50/50. Of course, when the data does become available it will change the posterior probability (in either direction) according to Bayes.
Under the short list of circumstances that render an individual eligible for a free Covid test it says " You can also get a test for someone you live with if they have symptoms."
What does this mean?
I don't like it.
Now, anyone for a Tikka Masala?
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/gym-owner-fined-after-fighting-19559419?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
Also, the 52%, as I pointed out above, is a somewhat misleading figure for 'efficacy'.
And btw tartan is from China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/03/exclusive-sir-geoffrey-boycott-voices-fears-delays-second-dose/
My friend`s brother is a public sector worker. He has had four periods off work so far by actively ensuring he is within close proximity of someone who has tested positive, thereby being "caught" by track and trace. My friend, also a public sector worker, is spitting feathers about it. It make my blood boil that someone like that is being paid 100% of salary for not working when guys like you on SAGE are working your nads off occupying unpaid positions.
Thanks for all you are doing.
Well it isn't, not really, but we're short of anagrams today.
Well that bit should be a dawdle..
I ran through a plausible scenario:
Week 1: Hospitalisations from an average of 40,000 reported cases daily, negligible benefit yet seen from vaccination, NHS copes. Deaths: c. 6000
Week 2: Hosptalisations from an average of 60,000 reported cases daily, half of all 85+ are now immune, NHS can no longer quite keep up. An extra number of deaths equal to half the difference between hospitalisations and deaths for both categories 75-84 and 85+. Deaths: c. 8000
Week 3: Hospitalisations from an average of 80,000 reported cases daily, all 85+ now immune and a quarter of 75-84 year olds. Triage results in an extra number of deaths equal to three quarters of the difference between hospitalisations and deaths in categories 65-74 and 75-84 and a quarter of the difference in categories 45-64. Deaths: c. 15,000
Week 4: Hospitalisations from an average of 100,000 reported cases daily, all 85+ and three quarters of 75-84 now immune (and a considerable number above these have had first jabs but not yet got protection). Triage results in an extra number of deaths equal to three quarters of the difference between hospitalisations and deaths in categories 65-74 and 75-84 and a half of the difference in categories 45-64. Deaths: c. 11,000
(Needs around 4.5-5 million to have had first jabs by middle of the month. With over a million jabbed to date, I think that's plausible, even with a slowish start)
After that, the vaccinations really start having an effect. It's significant that (assuming we are at around 5 million jabbed by around the middle of the month), the deaths finally start falling even with infections still slowly increasing (by a quarter, indicating an R of around 1.15 by then) and the NHS hugely overloaded.
40,000 deaths in four weeks, but starting to decline by the end of January - IF we get our fingers out. And IF restrictions at least slow the spread significantly.
That's the vaccination race in a nutshell. If we keep accelerating on the vaccination front, February would look a lot better
He doesn't have the stomach for it.
By anyone's lights, it is a nice example of cognitive dissonance.
[edit] sorry, only the last joke was mine - blockquotes awry.
If someone is arguing that additional social distancing doesn`t reduce virus transmission then they are bonkers.
As I`ve said before, arguing against lockdown measures based on philosophical principle is one thing, resorting to pseudo-science is another.
Loeffler however said she still had not decided whether to join them in objecting or not
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/perdue-says-trump-call-with-georgia-secretary-of-state-wont-affect-runoff
On that more cheerful note I’m having a coffee
Apparently there's some sort of 'virus' involved.
https://twitter.com/RacingLines/status/1346052341326352384
I predicted Starmer would call for it
I predicted BoZo would fuck it up
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/0a4855dc-b908-4f95-9e9a-0bd48eb01849
The figures for the last 2 weeks of the year are not yet released but currently we are looking at 592,000 deaths for 2020. That is an excess of between 60,000 and 70,000 and the final total will be somewhere around 80,000 excess deaths.
Must admit that the veggie haggis I've tried has been a bit rubbish, maybe making something new rather than trying to reproduce what it's not is a better option.
Thanks for pointing out that the 52% shouldn't be taken at face value.
Main movement LD to Tory surprisingly.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1346088853355040768?s=20
So - Labour do or don't want schools closed?
Suppose it will keep the queues down!
"We're going to need a bigger box" (of Ferraro Rocher, natch).
Mission accomplished. Bring it on.
lol....
The Swiss don’t obsess about their relationship with the EU, it’s not a front page headline, daily. But it does sometimes surge, then it retreats again to the obscure biz pages.
Banging on about Brexit every opportunity like this is something else: 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.
There's no need to say nonsense like "Brexit isn't working" - if you have a problem and a solution then you say "this isn't working and we should do that to fix it". Then it is a case of this and that which you are debating rather than trying to refight Brexit battles.
The problem is so far nobody seems to have identified a this which needs fixing, nor a that which needs implementing, so its easier to be whinging loser twats instead.
I understand 1940 America was strongly anti-Japan and much more ambivalent about Germany.
Holyhead might become a bit of a wasteland though (if it isn't already). Reopen Rio Tinto (as was) and build Wylfa II?