Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Guessing, weekend delayed reporting effect plus the bad weather. We were all very surprised on Friday that numbers were up despite the really bad weather.
The snow had all melted by Saturday afternoon, both down here and indeed up north.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Perhaps publishing daily numbers was a mistake after all. Quite like for testing.
Disagree. Keeps the government under constant pressure, which is a good thing. Let's keep the focus resolutely on the vax programme, whether or not daily assessments are strictly 'fair'.
No problem with using a fair assessment to criticise them, but the almost bipolar comments ranging from "fantastic" to "absolutely dire" in a few days is hardly helping.
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I think, for me, it`s primarily a matter of suitability for the office. The fact that he was unqualified and supremely unsuitable was obvious before he became president. And he hasn`t disappointed. He`s trashed the country`s reputation abroad - which it will take quite a while to recover from - partly because he is an easy subject to ridicule because he is inherently ridiculous.
Did you listen to James Comey on Sophie Ridge on Sunday?
The Trump Presidency
It's a cake made of awful policies, awful implementation of the awful policies and an icing made out of incompetent corruption in awful implantation of the awful policies. With layers of supporters who are substantially fascist and racist. The whole doused in insurrectionist and violent rhetoric, provoking and encouraging repeated criminality.
The cherry on the cake is the stupid Twitter addiction.
That's a good one, Malmesbury. Like that a lot. And it's as close to 100% objective as anything can ever be. Important not to go looking for "balance" on Trump. There isn't any.
BoZo can't stop the SNP holding a referendum with the same legal weight as Brexit, however many times you post the same shit.
The EU referendum was a legal referendum approved by the UK government, indyref2 would not be approved by the UK government led by Boris so wrong.
Plus even the 2016 Leave vote could not be implemented until January 2020 as there was no Westminster majority for No Deal or the WA until then, so again what Westminster says goes and the Tories have an 80 seat majority at Westminster
On the other hand, more people will live long enough to get their first dose.
Presuming that the maths are correct.
We know that vaccines are less effective in the elderly. How that affects the level of immunity in our targeted group of the over eighties after a single shot, no one knows. The evidence from Israel suggests a 33% level of protection in the third week after a single Pfizer.
I am a bit surprised that anyone has yet had time to die yet from a delayed second shot. The policy came in on 4th Jan, so the longest delay would now be 6 weeks. Catching covid, getting sick enough to be admitted and dying takes a couple of weeks. I would be interested in @Scott_P's source. I wouldn't think that we would find out about any cases for another few weeks at least.
Given the population being vaccinated, I'd be very surprised if quite large number don't die while waiting for their second shot. And demonstrating that any have died from a delayed second shot is, as you say, likely to take quite some time (and to be a non trivial exercise even after the event).
There's that and balancing that against people who are dying with zero doses and no protection against the virus whatsoever.
As someone pointed out on here a few days ago, it would be astonishing if people who had received their first jab haven't already died given the age range of recipients and that the programme started over a month ago. I'm sure the actuaries can work it out, but I expect it will be a fairly large number in absolute terms.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Guessing, weekend delayed reporting effect plus the bad weather. We were all very surprised on Friday that numbers were up despite the really bad weather.
The snow had all melted by Saturday afternoon, both down here and indeed up north.
Our snow hasn't completely melted yet. Our cul-de-sac is still partly covered in very slippery ice and the grass with white, crunchy ice. Its been a few years since we had as long a stint of winter weather as this.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
People have obviously not been patriotic enough. Perhaps there should be a weekly clap for the vaccine?
I haven't seen any confirmed story of somebody having had their first jab, then contracting COVID in month 1-3 and dying of COVID. There have been stories of people dying of other things, or that they tested positive for COVID within days of having the jab (which means most likely they had it when the got the jab).
Have I missed them? I have seen a couple of stories of frontline workers getting COVID in the 3 week period after the first jab, but not dying.
Statistically it is going to happen, but maybe I just missed these stories.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
Isn't this weekend reporting though (Saturday's figures on Monday, today we get Sunday's).
I haven't seen any confirmed story of somebody having had their first jab, then getting COVID and dying of it. Have I missed them? I have seen a couple of stories of frontline workers getting COVID in the 3 week period after the first jab, but not dying.
Statistically it is going to happen, but maybe I just missed these stories.
I'm sure our village idiot/twitter bot would have copied it within minutes if it had happened.
Some people were told they would get their second dose 3 weeks after their first.
And then they were told it would be 12 weeks.
And some died.
I realise that is complex logic for a Brexiteer but try harder.
There is a cure for covid but perhaps not a cure for your madness. Perhaps you'd like to move to France where you can enjoy your 1st and 2nd jab within weeks of each other at some point in the year 2024.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
Isn't this weekend reporting though (Saturday's figures on Monday, today we get Sunday's).
We don't know that, at least unless the government gives us event date data as they do with cases and deaths. Hopefully they're working on it.
On the other hand, more people will live long enough to get their first dose.
Presuming that the maths are correct.
We know that vaccines are less effective in the elderly. How that affects the level of immunity in our targeted group of the over eighties after a single shot, no one knows. The evidence from Israel suggests a 33% level of protection in the third week after a single Pfizer.
I am a bit surprised that anyone has yet had time to die yet from a delayed second shot. The policy came in on 4th Jan, so the longest delay would now be 6 weeks. Catching covid, getting sick enough to be admitted and dying takes a couple of weeks. I would be interested in @Scott_P's source. I wouldn't think that we would find out about any cases for another few weeks at least.
Given the population being vaccinated, I'd be very surprised if quite large number don't die while waiting for their second shot. And demonstrating that any have died from a delayed second shot is, as you say, likely to take quite some time (and to be a non trivial exercise even after the event).
There's that and balancing that against people who are dying with zero doses and no protection against the virus whatsoever.
As someone pointed out on here a few days ago, it would be astonishing if people who had received their first jab haven't already died given the age range of recipients and that the programme started over a month ago. I'm sure the actuaries can work it out, but I expect it will be a fairly large number in absolute terms.
That was my point - perhaps inadequately expressed.
@ mysticrose: I used to let HYUFD's posts get under my skin. His absolute certainty on issues where they can be no certainty, his refusal to ever admit he's wrong and constantly trying to change and twist the field of battle to avoid being forced to, and his unfathomable faith in opinion polls as absolute harbingers (or at least the polls of a select few) - all got my blood pressure up.
To be fair, you could also say that about quite a few of the Nats on here as well.
Unlike you, I am not inclined to look beyond the intransigence to try and discover whether there might be the occasional golden nugget lurking amongst the one-dimensional unyielding opinion.
Some of our Nat contingent have improved a lot - actually enjoying a joke and treating other posters like humans. It's been nice and long may it continue.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
Isn't this weekend reporting though (Saturday's figures on Monday, today we get Sunday's).
Quite possibly - the release says up to the 18th (yesterday). This might well mean data from the day before (17th), given data delays.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Guessing, weekend delayed reporting effect plus the bad weather. We were all very surprised on Friday that numbers were up despite the really bad weather.
The snow had all melted by Saturday afternoon, both down here and indeed up north.
Our snow hasn't completely melted yet. Our cul-de-sac is still partly covered in very slippery ice and the grass with white, crunchy ice. Its been a few years since we had as long a stint of winter weather as this.
Keir Starmer’s desire to win the next election is not in doubt, to help him he has hired a former Israeli Defence Force cyber-warfare intelligence officer to help his campaign.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Guessing, weekend delayed reporting effect plus the bad weather. We were all very surprised on Friday that numbers were up despite the really bad weather.
Date of vaccination vs date of report? Or chasing the hard to get to in care homes?
A mixture of both, I actually think that's why the government has started the over 70s vaccinations because they need the pool of easy to reach punters to keep the programme going at a high enough rate to meet the target.
If it is anything like what has happened to my 84yo fully independent father-in-law they have been told not to contact anyone about the vaccine and they need to wait. He could take himself off to any vaccination centre probably within a 100 mile radius with an hour's notice. Yet he is waiting and waiting and waiting. How many more like him are there?
Another anecdote is that my 78yo father received his letter today and has booked in for both his first and second jab. The first is not happening for almost 2 weeks (1st Feb). So clearly at that particular site they are booked up and slots were disappearing at a rate of knots.
The site that is used to book the appointment asks for your NHS number and then requests you don't complete the form until you have been notified. I have no evidence for this but I suspect there is no validation on the age of people who book appointments. My 72yo mother who is severely immuno-compromised has not received a letter yet and is far too honest to use the online form until she receives her letter.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Until we have seen multiple weeks, it is impossible to know what the expected day-by-day pattern is.
My expected day to day pattern is averaging 400k/day.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
Isn't this weekend reporting though (Saturday's figures on Monday, today we get Sunday's).
Quite possibly - the release says up to the 18th (yesterday). This might well mean data from the day before (17th), given data delays.
Even so it's a bit worrying, especially given that it is two days in a row. We should be ramping up at a sufficiently fast rate to swamp any day-of-the-week effect.
I haven't seen any confirmed story of somebody having had their first jab, then contracting COVID in month 1-3 and dying of COVID. There have been stories of people dying of other things, or that they tested positive for COVID within days of having the jab (which means most likely they had it when the got the jab).
Have I missed them? I have seen a couple of stories of frontline workers getting COVID in the 3 week period after the first jab, but not dying.
Statistically it is going to happen, but maybe I just missed these stories.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
Isn't this weekend reporting though (Saturday's figures on Monday, today we get Sunday's).
Quite possibly - the release says up to the 18th (yesterday). This might well mean data from the day before (17th), given data delays.
Even so it's a bit worrying, especially given that it is two days in a row. We should be ramping up at a sufficiently fast rate to swamp any day-of-the-week effect.
We are using GPs to do a lot of the vaccinations. Many of them do not work on weekends. For example.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
Isn't this weekend reporting though (Saturday's figures on Monday, today we get Sunday's).
Fairly certain it is the weekend effect, with delayed reporting.
On Sunday my Trust had so many leftovers at the vaccine hub that they used the WhatsApp Bush telegraph to get in as many admin and back office staff as they could, to prevent wastage.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
Isn't this weekend reporting though (Saturday's figures on Monday, today we get Sunday's).
Quite possibly - the release says up to the 18th (yesterday). This might well mean data from the day before (17th), given data delays.
Up to the 18th would to me mean everything not reported that has occurred prior to the 18th. So it will mainly be the Sunday figure which will be lower due to less people working.
But it does mean that the rush to get things going 24/7 was a bit premature they need to get weekend figures closer to weekday figures first.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
My GP has run through all the over 80s on her books, and has started on the over 70s.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
Like it wasn't a forseeable problem.
True, but we also have the issue of the those over 80 who have not had the jab yet getting ratty because some places are starting on the next group. And the media will be (indeed are) all over this.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
People have obviously not been patriotic enough. Perhaps there should be a weekly clap for the vaccine?
Did I just see a Scottish Nationalist use the word 'patriotic' as a form of sarcasm?
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?
The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.
You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
While I have a lot of time for @HYUFD and I think the site is richer for his presence and his posts, nevertheless that parody you posted of him in typical HYUFD mode was bloody funny.
I tried to find it but couldn't. Please re-post (daily, if necessary).
It's vulgar to reuse your own material, and the effect will be less for repetition, but since you asked:
----- The pointlessness of conversations with HYUFD:
IMAGINARY PBer: Hey, I think we should move the capital to Birmingham. There would be some real advantages to this plan. HUFYD: The capital of the UK is London IMAGINARY PBer: yes, I know, but it could be moved to somewhere else, don't you think there's some merit to that idea? HYUFD: whilst it's not unknown for a country to move it capital (example, example) most countries stick with the same capital each year IMAGINARY PBer: yes, again, I know, but what do you think of the idea? HYUFD: The Conservatives are currently polling 2 points ahead of Labour, which shows that they are right not to be talking about moving the capital IMAGINARY PBer: you can't possibly think that is an argument one way or another HYUFD: This Scottish subsample also shows that a plurality of voters want London to be the capital
We all love you and I'm sorry if you find my logic posts tedious. I do it for 2 reasons:
a) I think it helps to take the content out of a discussion to break it down into a logical format so as to see if it is logically flawed much more easily. I have made some real humdingers in the past which are hard to see in several pages of writing, but when broken down into 3 or 4 formulae are blinding obvious. b) It is what I specialised in, in my degree (albeit 45 years ago so have forgotten most of it).
I have no doubt there are various posters on here who could run circles around me so I won't be pushing my luck.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
If the numbers seem weird it's probably something to do with the way they're being reported.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Until we have seen multiple weeks, it is impossible to know what the expected day-by-day pattern is.
My expected day to day pattern is averaging 400k/day.
We are nowhere near that!
Having had a think about it, we're probably actually close to the limit of people in the first two groups either having had or being booked in for their first injections. I actually think this is why the government has brought the over 70s and severely clinically vulnerable forwards by a week so they can get more people booked in and more first jabs done over the next few weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if they start bringing in the over 65s group a week before the target date so they can continue to get easy to reach punters booked in.
The challenge, IMO, is going to be reaching the last 30-40% of these groups that have been outlined, it may actually take weeks to go from 60% of a group to 95% of a group but only a week to go from 0% of a group to 60%.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
Isn't this weekend reporting though (Saturday's figures on Monday, today we get Sunday's).
Quite possibly - the release says up to the 18th (yesterday). This might well mean data from the day before (17th), given data delays.
Even so it's a bit worrying, especially given that it is two days in a row. We should be ramping up at a sufficiently fast rate to swamp any day-of-the-week effect.
We are using GPs to do a lot of the vaccinations. Many of them do not work on weekends. For example.
The figure for England reported today (170,400) is actually less than that reported on Tuesday last week (174K).
There may be a non-worrying explanation, but for now I think I'll do a bit of worrying all the same.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
My GP has run through all the over 80s on her books, and has started on the over 70s.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
People have obviously not been patriotic enough. Perhaps there should be a weekly clap for the vaccine?
Did I just see a Scottish Nationalist use the word 'patriotic' as a form of sarcasm?
Because it is British Patriotism not full M&S Scottish Patriotism...
The UK strategy on vaccinations is of course a calculated risk. Infinite supply and capacity we wouldn't do it this way. But neither would anybody be licencing AZN vaccine.
And of course even in the perfect world scenario we would still be getting reports of death among those who have been vaccinated....its how probability works.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
People have obviously not been patriotic enough. Perhaps there should be a weekly clap for the vaccine?
Did I just see a Scottish Nationalist use the word 'patriotic' as a form of sarcasm?
Because it is British Patriotism not full M&S Scottish Patriotism...
I wonder if in the future some real nutter like Joanna Cherry will take the Jacob Rees-Mogg approach.
'The important thing is that they are now Scottish fish, and they are much happier for it.'
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?
The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.
You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.
Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
He hasn't got one.
I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.
HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
No, that is the position of the party leader and UK PM Boris Johnson who on Marr only this month said no indyref2 effectively until 2055 as long as he remained PM.
If you disagree so strongly with our party leader on this it is just further confirmation you are not a Conservative
I'm not sure that any British party has ever taken the Fuehrerprinzip quite that far. Just in general terms it is always possible to disagree with the leader on something without ceasing to be a supporter. (I'm not a fan of Keir's hairstyle. Sue me.)
Personally I don't think we can postpone another indyref forever, but the end of the next Parliament (2029, probably) seems reasonable.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
People have obviously not been patriotic enough. Perhaps there should be a weekly clap for the vaccine?
Did I just see a Scottish Nationalist use the word 'patriotic' as a form of sarcasm?
Because it is British Patriotism not full M&S Scottish Patriotism...
I've never called myself a patriot as I think it's a bit wanky, and that people who loudly proclaim themselves as such tend to be wankers.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
Maybe there's something about deliveries on a Monday?
We don't know what reporting lags there are, and these are likely to change as new vaccination centres are set up and sundry other issues. I would expect a lot of daily variability in the numbers that is mostly meaningless for a while.
Always happier when the daily variability has a higher number than a lower one though.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?
The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.
You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
I tend to give the firm view of the Tory government on this site, including on no indyref2 for a generation.
If you cannot hack that tough. Sometimes firm lines have to be drawn in the sand. I am not going to concede to appease you
I don't know when you last went to a beach, but lines in the sand tend not to be firm.
With a majority of 80 they are, until 2024 Boris can and will do what he likes as PM
Yes, Boris can do what he likes until 2024. That includes changing his mind. Which he has already done on several occasions.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?
The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.
You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.
Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
He hasn't got one.
I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.
HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
No, that is the position of the party leader and UK PM Boris Johnson who on Marr only this month said no indyref2 effectively until 2055 as long as he remained PM.
If you disagree so strongly with our party leader on this it is just further confirmation you are not a Conservative
I'm not sure that any British party has ever taken the Fuehrerprinzip quite that far. Just in general terms it is always possible to disagree with the leader on something without ceasing to be a supporter. (I'm not a fan of Keir's hairstyle. Sue me.)
Personally I don't think we can postpone another indyref forever, but the end of the next Parliament (2029, probably) seems reasonable.
I used to think William Hague looked a like right twat with that skinhead look he sported to de-emphasize his baldness.
Then I hit 36 and I realised far from being a right twat, he was a man of taste and discretion who does what all sensible men do.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?
The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.
You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.
Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
He hasn't got one.
I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.
HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
No, that is the position of the party leader and UK PM Boris Johnson who on Marr only this month said no indyref2 effectively until 2055 as long as he remained PM.
If you disagree so strongly with our party leader on this it is just further confirmation you are not a Conservative
I'm not sure that any British party has ever taken the Fuehrerprinzip quite that far. Just in general terms it is always possible to disagree with the leader on something without ceasing to be a supporter. (I'm not a fan of Keir's hairstyle. Sue me.)
Personally I don't think we can postpone another indyref forever, but the end of the next Parliament (2029, probably) seems reasonable.
Fine, if Starmer is UK PM by then and reliant on SNP support after the 2024 general election he can deal with it.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
I would think this is the most logical explanation. With somewhere like Yorkshire where a significant majority of over 80s are vaccinated the hubs are probably dealing with considerably fewer people than 7 days ago. The appointments for the 70+ groups are being gradually phased in so there may well be a lull in the numbers until later in the week.
This explains why it is a sensible policy with regards working close to capacity to open up the vaccination programme to a lower priority group rather than focusing entirely on the over 80s at this stage.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Until we have seen multiple weeks, it is impossible to know what the expected day-by-day pattern is.
My expected day to day pattern is averaging 400k/day.
We are nowhere near that!
Having had a think about it, we're probably actually close to the limit of people in the first two groups either having had or being booked in for their first injections. I actually think this is why the government has brought the over 70s and severely clinically vulnerable forwards by a week so they can get more people booked in and more first jabs done over the next few weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if they start bringing in the over 65s group a week before the target date so they can continue to get easy to reach punters booked in.
The challenge, IMO, is going to be reaching the last 30-40% of these groups that have been outlined, it may actually take weeks to go from 60% of a group to 95% of a group but only a week to go from 0% of a group to 60%.
Following up on this, it is also the correct strategy. Vaccination is ultimately a numbers game and getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest space of time is preferable to having unused doses sitting in fridges because there are still 5,827 over 80s that haven't had it yet.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Until we have seen multiple weeks, it is impossible to know what the expected day-by-day pattern is.
My expected day to day pattern is averaging 400k/day.
We are nowhere near that!
Having had a think about it, we're probably actually close to the limit of people in the first two groups either having had or being booked in for their first injections. I actually think this is why the government has brought the over 70s and severely clinically vulnerable forwards by a week so they can get more people booked in and more first jabs done over the next few weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if they start bringing in the over 65s group a week before the target date so they can continue to get easy to reach punters booked in.
The challenge, IMO, is going to be reaching the last 30-40% of these groups that have been outlined, it may actually take weeks to go from 60% of a group to 95% of a group but only a week to go from 0% of a group to 60%.
Where this risks going wrong for the Government is if it emerges we have a week or more worth of stockpiled vaccine. At that point, the age requirements start to break down and pressure builds to just jab arms, regardless of age. 24/7.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Guessing, weekend delayed reporting effect plus the bad weather. We were all very surprised on Friday that numbers were up despite the really bad weather.
Date of vaccination vs date of report? Or chasing the hard to get to in care homes?
A mixture of both, I actually think that's why the government has started the over 70s vaccinations because they need the pool of easy to reach punters to keep the programme going at a high enough rate to meet the target.
If it is anything like what has happened to my 84yo fully independent father-in-law they have been told not to contact anyone about the vaccine and they need to wait. He could take himself off to any vaccination centre probably within a 100 mile radius with an hour's notice. Yet he is waiting and waiting and waiting. How many more like him are there?
Another anecdote is that my 78yo father received his letter today and has booked in for both his first and second jab. The first is not happening for almost 2 weeks (1st Feb). So clearly at that particular site they are booked up and slots were disappearing at a rate of knots.
The site that is used to book the appointment asks for your NHS number and then requests you don't complete the form until you have been notified. I have no evidence for this but I suspect there is no validation on the age of people who book appointments. My 72yo mother who is severely immuno-compromised has not received a letter yet and is far too honest to use the online form until she receives her letter.
Call up the local vaccination centre, if you know the number, or GP if not and organise then and there an appointment. If your father is on "the list" then it's simply a matter for you to book an appointment. I called yesterday about my aunt who is housebound. Such vaccinations (household) haven't been introduced yet but the GP asked me if she wanted a jab tomorrow at a vaccination centre any/most times from 9.30 - 5pm.
You need to take the initiative on this, as with most else with the NHS.
And the fact that they had a whole day free (this was at Lord's in London) suggests that it is lack of candidates that might account for the low numbers over the past few days.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?
The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.
You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.
Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
He hasn't got one.
I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.
HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
No, that is the position of the party leader and UK PM Boris Johnson who on Marr only this month said no indyref2 effectively until 2055 as long as he remained PM.
If you disagree so strongly with our party leader on this it is just further confirmation you are not a Conservative
I'm not sure that any British party has ever taken the Fuehrerprinzip quite that far. Just in general terms it is always possible to disagree with the leader on something without ceasing to be a supporter. (I'm not a fan of Keir's hairstyle. Sue me.)
Personally I don't think we can postpone another indyref forever, but the end of the next Parliament (2029, probably) seems reasonable.
Fine, if Starmer is UK PM by then he can deal with it.
It would no longer be former PM Boris' problem.
I'm pretty sure Johnson will still have a daft hairstyle, and that PM Starmer won't bother much about that.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
If the numbers seem weird it's probably something to do with the way they're being reported.
Is it possible that demand under 80 is not as overwhelming as the government thought?
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You actually said (cut and paste)
'most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament'
It was not possible to factually deduct that from the data. It was an opinion, that may or may not reasonably be assumed.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
If the numbers seem weird it's probably something to do with the way they're being reported.
Is it possible that demand under 80 is not as overwhelming as the government thought?
Which leaves Johnson with a bit of a problem....
What when letters for under 80s only went out yesterday.....
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.
In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got. And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization. Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump. He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features. If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
I'm waiting to see Trump announce that his inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Biden's (as it will be due to Covid and the lockdown that Trump has forced in Washington making attending it virtually impossible).
Without a doubt. Poor Joe, he will not be getting much of a Big Day. His speech will be interesting though. He's not a top class orator but he did make some good ones during the campaign. Perhaps he'll be a tempted by some Gerald Ford, seek to turn the page using elevated healing rhetoric.
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
If the numbers seem weird it's probably something to do with the way they're being reported.
Is it possible that demand under 80 is not as overwhelming as the government thought?
Which leaves Johnson with a bit of a problem....
What when letters for under 80s only went out yesterday.....
I guess there could be a gap between the 80s being done and the new cohort being invited. A sort of invite-lag?
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Until we have seen multiple weeks, it is impossible to know what the expected day-by-day pattern is.
My expected day to day pattern is averaging 400k/day.
We are nowhere near that!
Having had a think about it, we're probably actually close to the limit of people in the first two groups either having had or being booked in for their first injections. I actually think this is why the government has brought the over 70s and severely clinically vulnerable forwards by a week so they can get more people booked in and more first jabs done over the next few weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if they start bringing in the over 65s group a week before the target date so they can continue to get easy to reach punters booked in.
The challenge, IMO, is going to be reaching the last 30-40% of these groups that have been outlined, it may actually take weeks to go from 60% of a group to 95% of a group but only a week to go from 0% of a group to 60%.
Where this risks going wrong for the Government is if it emerges we have a week or more worth of stockpiled vaccine. At that point, the age requirements start to break down and pressure builds to just jab arms, regardless of age. 24/7.
Yes, that's definitely true and tbh, if the government had 20m+ doses sitting in fridges it might just do that and have people queue up for it rather than any appointment based system for first jabs. It's a numbers game, I said it a couple of weeks ago, this whole list of prioritisation etc... could be easily junked if we had the capacity to do 10m jabs per week, we could just get everyone to queue up for it and about 6 weeks in we would have reached herd immunity.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Until we have seen multiple weeks, it is impossible to know what the expected day-by-day pattern is.
My expected day to day pattern is averaging 400k/day.
We are nowhere near that!
Having had a think about it, we're probably actually close to the limit of people in the first two groups either having had or being booked in for their first injections. I actually think this is why the government has brought the over 70s and severely clinically vulnerable forwards by a week so they can get more people booked in and more first jabs done over the next few weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if they start bringing in the over 65s group a week before the target date so they can continue to get easy to reach punters booked in.
The challenge, IMO, is going to be reaching the last 30-40% of these groups that have been outlined, it may actually take weeks to go from 60% of a group to 95% of a group but only a week to go from 0% of a group to 60%.
My wife is in the vulnerable category - the GP dropped a strong hint that given the rate to date, that her group (they are prioritising over 70s first) was not far off.
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.
In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got. And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization. Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump. He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features. If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
I'm waiting to see Trump announce that his inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Biden's (as it will be due to Covid and the lockdown that Trump has forced in Washington making attending it virtually impossible).
Without a doubt. Poor Joe, he will not be getting much of a Big Day. His speech will be interesting though. He's not a top class orator but he did make some good ones during the campaign. Perhaps he'll be a tempted by some Gerald Ford, seek to turn the page using elevated healing rhetoric.
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
I think that the best speech I have heard from him was on 6th January. More of that would not go amiss.
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.
In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got. And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization. Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump. He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features. If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
I'm waiting to see Trump announce that his inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Biden's (as it will be due to Covid and the lockdown that Trump has forced in Washington making attending it virtually impossible).
Without a doubt. Poor Joe, he will not be getting much of a Big Day. His speech will be interesting though. He's not a top class orator but he did make some good ones during the campaign. Perhaps he'll be a tempted by some Gerald Ford, seek to turn the page using elevated healing rhetoric.
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
I think that the best speech I have heard from him was on 6th January. More of that would not go amiss.
You know when you've been Tango'ed. Don't risk it occurring a second time
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
If the numbers seem weird it's probably something to do with the way they're being reported.
Is it possible that demand under 80 is not as overwhelming as the government thought?
Which leaves Johnson with a bit of a problem....
What when letters for under 80s only went out yesterday.....
I guess there could be a gap between the 80s being done and the new cohort being invited. A sort of invite-lag?
You may be right, but I hope not. That would not be good planning.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Until we have seen multiple weeks, it is impossible to know what the expected day-by-day pattern is.
My expected day to day pattern is averaging 400k/day.
We are nowhere near that!
Having had a think about it, we're probably actually close to the limit of people in the first two groups either having had or being booked in for their first injections. I actually think this is why the government has brought the over 70s and severely clinically vulnerable forwards by a week so they can get more people booked in and more first jabs done over the next few weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if they start bringing in the over 65s group a week before the target date so they can continue to get easy to reach punters booked in.
The challenge, IMO, is going to be reaching the last 30-40% of these groups that have been outlined, it may actually take weeks to go from 60% of a group to 95% of a group but only a week to go from 0% of a group to 60%.
My wife is in the vulnerable category - the GP dropped a strong hint that given the rate to date, that her group (they are prioritising over 70s first) was not far off.
Yes, my best friend had the shielding letter and he's been told that to wait "a few days" for an appointment to be booked.
Trump's catastrophe was not only that he was one of the first US politicians to tackle the failure of globalised capitalism for large parts of the US head on, but he was at the same time, as mentioned, uniquely badly qualified to do this. Not only did he try his hardest the divide rather than unite, but through his campaign on "fraud" he's partly destroyed trust in democracy itself.
The unfortunate result of all this is that radical reform has, partly, been discredited, while the same new administration half the country are looking to to restore unity and civility, is looked on by much of other half both the as the continuation of corrupt business-as-usual - and there are certainly quite a few revolving-door corporate appointments in Biden's government's alongside the progressives ones - and the negation of democracy itself. It couldn't be more misaligned or assymetrical, but Biden has the chance to show he's doing something different, particularly if he allows people like Bernie Sanders a prominent role in things.
Yes, no need for healing & reconciliation to mean shy away from radical reform.
Indeed if it's true - which I admit to doubting - that the biggest driver of white working class support for Trump was a desire to improve their economic prospects, rather than matters of identity, then many of the policies required to appeal to them are to be found on the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Until we have seen multiple weeks, it is impossible to know what the expected day-by-day pattern is.
My expected day to day pattern is averaging 400k/day.
We are nowhere near that!
Having had a think about it, we're probably actually close to the limit of people in the first two groups either having had or being booked in for their first injections. I actually think this is why the government has brought the over 70s and severely clinically vulnerable forwards by a week so they can get more people booked in and more first jabs done over the next few weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if they start bringing in the over 65s group a week before the target date so they can continue to get easy to reach punters booked in.
The challenge, IMO, is going to be reaching the last 30-40% of these groups that have been outlined, it may actually take weeks to go from 60% of a group to 95% of a group but only a week to go from 0% of a group to 60%.
Where this risks going wrong for the Government is if it emerges we have a week or more worth of stockpiled vaccine. At that point, the age requirements start to break down and pressure builds to just jab arms, regardless of age. 24/7.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
If the numbers seem weird it's probably something to do with the way they're being reported.
Is it possible that demand under 80 is not as overwhelming as the government thought?
Which leaves Johnson with a bit of a problem....
What when letters for under 80s only went out yesterday.....
I guess there could be a gap between the 80s being done and the new cohort being invited. A sort of invite-lag?
You may be right, but I hope not. That would not be good planning.
Nah, you can't really blame them if it is the case. We've never attempted a mass vaccination programme such as this, there will be a lot of learning by doing and if this is one of the lessons (invite the next group as the previous one reaches 40% done) then it's a good time to learn it.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
Isn't this weekend reporting though (Saturday's figures on Monday, today we get Sunday's).
Quite possibly - the release says up to the 18th (yesterday). This might well mean data from the day before (17th), given data delays.
Up to the 18th would to me mean everything not reported that has occurred prior to the 18th. So it will mainly be the Sunday figure which will be lower due to less people working.
But it does mean that the rush to get things going 24/7 was a bit premature they need to get weekend figures closer to weekday figures first.
Once they're vaccinating people of working age they need to be prepared to offer more vaccinations at the weekend than during the day. Make this easy for people.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
If the numbers seem weird it's probably something to do with the way they're being reported.
Is it possible that demand under 80 is not as overwhelming as the government thought?
Which leaves Johnson with a bit of a problem....
What when letters for under 80s only went out yesterday.....
I guess there could be a gap between the 80s being done and the new cohort being invited. A sort of invite-lag?
You may be right, but I hope not. That would not be good planning.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Until we have seen multiple weeks, it is impossible to know what the expected day-by-day pattern is.
My expected day to day pattern is averaging 400k/day.
We are nowhere near that!
Having had a think about it, we're probably actually close to the limit of people in the first two groups either having had or being booked in for their first injections. I actually think this is why the government has brought the over 70s and severely clinically vulnerable forwards by a week so they can get more people booked in and more first jabs done over the next few weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if they start bringing in the over 65s group a week before the target date so they can continue to get easy to reach punters booked in.
The challenge, IMO, is going to be reaching the last 30-40% of these groups that have been outlined, it may actually take weeks to go from 60% of a group to 95% of a group but only a week to go from 0% of a group to 60%.
My wife is in the vulnerable category - the GP dropped a strong hint that given the rate to date, that her group (they are prioritising over 70s first) was not far off.
Yes, my best friend had the shielding letter and he's been told that to wait "a few days" for an appointment to be booked.
Interesting - same words used.
The GP said (Friday) that they were already vaccinating over 70s.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
My GP has run through all the over 80s on her books...
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
If the numbers seem weird it's probably something to do with the way they're being reported.
Is it possible that demand under 80 is not as overwhelming as the government thought?
Which leaves Johnson with a bit of a problem....
What when letters for under 80s only went out yesterday.....
I guess there could be a gap between the 80s being done and the new cohort being invited. A sort of invite-lag?
You may be right, but I hope not. That would not be good planning.
It doesn't really matter that much anyway. Read the news. The schools are not going back this side of Easter. The pubs won't be opening until the summer at the earliest.
You are not getting your freedoms back for another five months at least. And even then we're talking Tier 2.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
My GP has run through all the over 80s on her books...
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
It's a single day's numbers, I wouldn't be worrying too much. Yet.
It's two days on the bounce with shite returns.
Isn't this weekend reporting though (Saturday's figures on Monday, today we get Sunday's).
Fairly certain it is the weekend effect, with delayed reporting.
On Sunday my Trust had so many leftovers at the vaccine hub that they used the WhatsApp Bush telegraph to get in as many admin and back office staff as they could, to prevent wastage.
Don`t waste any. If any are going begging post on here and a few of us can tank it up to Leicester!
We don't want to be too rigid about achieving the perfect order of vaccination. The end state is the same - vaccinating everyone - and it's not important to do it quickly than in the right order.
So the vaccination program needs to balance injecting people in priority order with using doses as soon as they are available.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?
The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.
You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.
Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
He hasn't got one.
I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.
HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
No, that is the position of the party leader and UK PM Boris Johnson who on Marr only this month said no indyref2 effectively until 2055 as long as he remained PM.
If you disagree so strongly with our party leader on this it is just further confirmation you are not a Conservative
I'm not sure that any British party has ever taken the Fuehrerprinzip quite that far. Just in general terms it is always possible to disagree with the leader on something without ceasing to be a supporter. (I'm not a fan of Keir's hairstyle. Sue me.)
Personally I don't think we can postpone another indyref forever, but the end of the next Parliament (2029, probably) seems reasonable.
Fine, if Starmer is UK PM by then and reliant on SNP support after the 2024 general election he can deal with it.
We don't want to be too rigid about achieving the perfect order of vaccination. The end state is the same - vaccinating everyone - and it's not important to do it quickly than in the right order.
So the vaccination program needs to balance injecting people in priority order with using doses as soon as they are available.
Agree - "Missed" people in various groups can be backfilled into the next cohort.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
My GP has run through all the over 80s on her books...
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
My GP has run through all the over 80s on her books...
Using quite a large needle, then ?
Effiecient.
At £40+ a pop, providing they got the over 80s done by Jan 17th (there was an extra £20 bonus for COVID vaccination on top of the usual vaccination payment).... that was a hell of an incentive....
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
You're incredibly simplistic, aren't you?
The indyref2 issue is much more complex than your Playschool approach. You 'may' prove correct in the end about your assertion but it is not the only logic and it's not the only approach under consideration.
You are, I am afraid to say, beginning to drag down this site. I used to like coming on here but you're one of the main reasons I don't hang around. It's not your politics, about which I couldn't care. It's your combination of being simplistic with being intransigent.
HYUFD is a bog standard third rate politician, answering the question he wants to answer rather than the one people ask. It's the mark of a coward.
Nope it is the mark of someone being prepared to take on and fight leftwingers like you.
Politically you are the enemy of a Conservative like myself, so don't expect me to give any concessions to you.
You need a better reason and argument to stop Scottish independence than the phrase "You can't leave"
He hasn't got one.
I respect Conservative Unionists on here like @DavidL and @Casino_Royale and @Big_G_NorthWales (and others sorry for not including everyone) who are passionate unionists who will take the arguments out there to defend the union and want it to continue democratically. I disagree on this one issue with them respectfully, but I 100% respect their passion and integrity.
HYUFD seems to want to throw a temper tantrum and say "it doesn't matter how you voted, I'm holding my breath and saying no". That's not democracy, its not legitimate and it doesn't work.
No, that is the position of the party leader and UK PM Boris Johnson who on Marr only this month said no indyref2 effectively until 2055 as long as he remained PM.
If you disagree so strongly with our party leader on this it is just further confirmation you are not a Conservative
I'm not sure that any British party has ever taken the Fuehrerprinzip quite that far. Just in general terms it is always possible to disagree with the leader on something without ceasing to be a supporter. (I'm not a fan of Keir's hairstyle. Sue me.)
Personally I don't think we can postpone another indyref forever, but the end of the next Parliament (2029, probably) seems reasonable.
Fine, if Starmer is UK PM by then and reliant on SNP support after the 2024 general election he can deal with it.
It would no longer be former PM Boris' problem.
Someone else's baby, so to speak.
Expect a super injunction the day after BJ steps down to suppress any mention of him and his bairn Scottish indy.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
Its possible some places have run out of people to jab in the over 80's, hence the need to start the next groups.
My GP has run through all the over 80s on her books...
Using quite a large needle, then ?
Effiecient.
At £40+ a pop, providing they got the over 80s done by Jan 17th (there was an extra £20 bonus for COVID vaccination on top of the usual vaccination payment).... that was a hell of an incentive....
Definitely worth a few extra phone calls and staying open until 9pm on the 16th then!
The over-70s face uncertainty over vaccination appointments as GPs who are ready to offer the jabs complain that supplies are being diverted.
Elderly people are also being given appointments at mass vaccination centres a long way from home and overlapping with slots allocated by their local GPs.
As ministers announced new mass vaccination centres and an extension of the programme a patchwork picture emerged with some family doctors yet to reach all their over-80s and others desperate for further doses to give.
The announcement that vaccines were to be made available to the over-70s and the clinically extremely vulnerable caught many practices by surprise yesterday morning. Doctors and practice managers expressed anger that news of the extension was released to the media first.
The Institute of General Practice Management said GPs’ phones across the country were “jammed with patients in the extended cohorts asking us how and when they can book their vaccinations”.
In a letter to Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of the NHS, the practice managers warned that the situation was “stopping those in need of care getting through and leaving our teams answering questions that we could have been better prepared for”.
Serious question. Does anybody have a theory as to why Boris Johnson is so popular with the Far Right? I find this odd. Even odder than us still having colonial territories in far flung places. Johnson's style is not Far Right. His rhetoric isn't Far Right. His policies aren't Far Right. And yet the Far Right rather like him. It's nothing to do with him being the Tory leader. For example, they hated Theresa May. But they are into him. Why?
Insofar as a far right even exists in Britain, they seem to hate Boris for making them wear face nappies, protecting them from a fake virus, and forcing them to be injected with Bill Gates' semen. That's when they aren't calling him a traitor for signing a deal with the EU or acknowledging the communist Biden as the rightful President of the United States.
It does exist. Most certainly it does. And they had a soft spot for "Boris". He got a Tommy Robinson endorsement no less. You're saying they've gone off him now because of how he's prioritized the NHS over the right of an Englishman to live strong & free? I hope you're right. Because the matter was bugging me. The Far Right ought to be hating whoever is our PM. If they aren't, something is going wrong.
Have a look at where Boris stands in the ConHome rankings, or what the top Daily Mail comments on articles about his major policies say, or what Delingpole is Tweeting about him - it's as good a proxy for that strand of opinion as anything else.
Perhaps in this sense he has been saved by the pandemic. It's forced him to jettison the support he had from unsavouries. I'm not a believer in having as wide a voting coalition as possible. I think a mandate is polluted if the wrong sorts are on board.
I've never been into ConHome. It's a far right grouping, then, is it?
Why do you think people get banished there for misbehaving on PB?
Let's just say it's rather more FarageDelingpoleRobinsonHome than anything else.
As for mandates being polluted, that rather ignores the messiness of democratic politics. An election-winning Corbyn government would inevitably have drawn part of its support from antisemites and all sorts of extremists of the left, but repulsive though that is it would still have had a democratic mandate.
Really? ConHome is a cesspit then? I honestly did not know that and I'm a bit shocked. As for mandates, I want Labour to win one in 24, of course I do, but it's important in my mind that people who vote Labour in that election are doing so for the right reasons. If they're not - e.g. if they're voting Labour mainly because whenever Starmer comes on TV, you can hardly see him for flags - I'll feel uneasy about what the mandate actually is and what can realistically be done with it. For me, politics is NOT all about power in Westminster. I find that a bit blinkered and at the same time unambitious. It's better to win later for real than earlier on an extremely impure platform. But rider: You can't keep losing elections the whole time. You do need to win one eventually. So that's my view on this. Very balanced as you can see.
Comments
Plus even the 2016 Leave vote could not be implemented until January 2020 as there was no Westminster majority for No Deal or the WA until then, so again what Westminster says goes and the Tories have an 80 seat majority at Westminster
Congratulations on missing it. Again.
As someone pointed out on here a few days ago, it would be astonishing if people who had received their first jab haven't already died given the age range of recipients and that the programme started over a month ago. I'm sure the actuaries can work it out, but I expect it will be a fairly large number in absolute terms.
Perhaps there should be a weekly clap for the vaccine?
Have I missed them? I have seen a couple of stories of frontline workers getting COVID in the 3 week period after the first jab, but not dying.
Statistically it is going to happen, but maybe I just missed these stories.
'Next Scottish Labour leader urged to join Tories in fight against SNP'
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1351504113004064768?s=20
Keir Starmer’s desire to win the next election is not in doubt, to help him he has hired a former Israeli Defence Force cyber-warfare intelligence officer to help his campaign.
https://order-order.com/2021/01/19/starmer-recruits-israeli-intelligence-cyber-warfare-veteran-for-social-media-role/
Another anecdote is that my 78yo father received his letter today and has booked in for both his first and second jab. The first is not happening for almost 2 weeks (1st Feb). So clearly at that particular site they are booked up and slots were disappearing at a rate of knots.
The site that is used to book the appointment asks for your NHS number and then requests you don't complete the form until you have been notified. I have no evidence for this but I suspect there is no validation on the age of people who book appointments. My 72yo mother who is severely immuno-compromised has not received a letter yet and is far too honest to use the online form until she receives her letter.
We are nowhere near that!
One of the US CDC panel members actually recommended against a policy of starting vaccinating care home residents before anyone else, solely because she feared the reports of deaths which would have occurred in any event would be used to discredit the vaccine:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-18/norway-finds-no-direct-link-between-elderly-deaths-and-vaccine
On Sunday my Trust had so many leftovers at the vaccine hub that they used the WhatsApp Bush telegraph to get in as many admin and back office staff as they could, to prevent wastage.
But it does mean that the rush to get things going 24/7 was a bit premature they need to get weekend figures closer to weekday figures first.
We all love you and I'm sorry if you find my logic posts tedious. I do it for 2 reasons:
a) I think it helps to take the content out of a discussion to break it down into a logical format so as to see if it is logically flawed much more easily. I have made some real humdingers in the past which are hard to see in several pages of writing, but when broken down into 3 or 4 formulae are blinding obvious.
b) It is what I specialised in, in my degree (albeit 45 years ago so have forgotten most of it).
I have no doubt there are various posters on here who could run circles around me so I won't be pushing my luck.
The challenge, IMO, is going to be reaching the last 30-40% of these groups that have been outlined, it may actually take weeks to go from 60% of a group to 95% of a group but only a week to go from 0% of a group to 60%.
There may be a non-worrying explanation, but for now I think I'll do a bit of worrying all the same.
And of course even in the perfect world scenario we would still be getting reports of death among those who have been vaccinated....its how probability works.
'The important thing is that they are now Scottish fish, and they are much happier for it.'
Personally I don't think we can postpone another indyref forever, but the end of the next Parliament (2029, probably) seems reasonable.
If you are explaining, you are losing the argument.
And you aren't even explaining.
Always happier when the daily variability has a higher number than a lower one though.
That includes changing his mind.
Which he has already done on several occasions.
Then I hit 36 and I realised far from being a right twat, he was a man of taste and discretion who does what all sensible men do.
It would no longer be former PM Boris' problem.
This explains why it is a sensible policy with regards working close to capacity to open up the vaccination programme to a lower priority group rather than focusing entirely on the over 80s at this stage.
You need to take the initiative on this, as with most else with the NHS.
And the fact that they had a whole day free (this was at Lord's in London) suggests that it is lack of candidates that might account for the low numbers over the past few days.
Which leaves Johnson with a bit of a problem....
Do you agree this was the one and only point I was making and nothing else?
Do you agree my statement was factually correct?
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
Indeed if it's true - which I admit to doubting - that the biggest driver of white working class support for Trump was a desire to improve their economic prospects, rather than matters of identity, then many of the policies required to appeal to them are to be found on the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.
Some numbers, from the ONS 2019
Over 80 - 3,362,599
70 - 79 - 5,644,163
65 - 69 - 3,368,199
60 - 64 - 3,755,185
https://twitter.com/WorldFamousHot1/status/1351539635500036096
The GP said (Friday) that they were already vaccinating over 70s.
You are not getting your freedoms back for another five months at least. And even then we're talking Tier 2.
For a while.
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1351547736492023810
So the vaccination program needs to balance injecting people in priority order with using doses as soon as they are available.
https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1351521170982645760
Edit: not sure abot the other denominations, so apols for any left out.
The over-70s face uncertainty over vaccination appointments as GPs who are ready to offer the jabs complain that supplies are being diverted.
Elderly people are also being given appointments at mass vaccination centres a long way from home and overlapping with slots allocated by their local GPs.
As ministers announced new mass vaccination centres and an extension of the programme a patchwork picture emerged with some family doctors yet to reach all their over-80s and others desperate for further doses to give.
The announcement that vaccines were to be made available to the over-70s and the clinically extremely vulnerable caught many practices by surprise yesterday morning. Doctors and practice managers expressed anger that news of the extension was released to the media first.
The Institute of General Practice Management said GPs’ phones across the country were “jammed with patients in the extended cohorts asking us how and when they can book their vaccinations”.
In a letter to Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of the NHS, the practice managers warned that the situation was “stopping those in need of care getting through and leaving our teams answering questions that we could have been better prepared for”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-weve-got-clamouring-patients-and-not-enough-doses-say-gps-gjgc5wcp3
As for mandates, I want Labour to win one in 24, of course I do, but it's important in my mind that people who vote Labour in that election are doing so for the right reasons. If they're not - e.g. if they're voting Labour mainly because whenever Starmer comes on TV, you can hardly see him for flags - I'll feel uneasy about what the mandate actually is and what can realistically be done with it.
For me, politics is NOT all about power in Westminster. I find that a bit blinkered and at the same time unambitious. It's better to win later for real than earlier on an extremely impure platform. But rider: You can't keep losing elections the whole time. You do need to win one eventually.
So that's my view on this. Very balanced as you can see.