We need to know the reason why they weren't closed at that time. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Clapham omnibus knew it was the right thing to do.
If we had closed the borders as soon as it was clear infections were coming in from abroad thousands of deaths would have been avoided. Just look at NZ, Australia and Taiwan. So much easier for an island.
I just don't think the country would have been receptive to such pre-emptive action in Jan/Feb/March. Perhaps March after lockdown. Steve Baker et al would have made that 80-seat majority look decidedly flimsy.
So the government decided to put thousands of lives at risk to appease the cranks on the Tory backbenches.
Elliott leaves HK, staff primarily transferred to their London office which will handle Asia. Some go to Tokyo.
Paris or Frankfurt didn't even figure. Odd that. Lol.
Do they have an office in FFT/Paris?!
Park St so much more civilised.
It's more the point that London, IMO, is going to be the like for like replacement to HK for Asia investment and companies will just deal with the timezone issues as they arise. Paris and Frankfurt aren't going to figure in this at all and to my mind if the EU tries to cut London off they simply isolate themselves rather than us.
Our regulatory guy has pointed out on a number of occasions that the EU not giving the UK equivalence will break the idea that the EU is a regulatory superpower so it's better for them to give it and hold onto the pretence.
I think the next year or so is going to be a chastening experience for European countries hoping to pick up the scraps.
I think that's overdoing it, especially as if more people are working from home, the fact that Frankfurt hasn't one single decent restaurant will matter less.
I never thought London would "lose" its dominance. But I can say that as recently as this morning I am aware of a contract not given to a UK firm by an EU institution because of data and infrastructure located outside the EU issues.
I think WFH is massively overdone. Anecdotally our lot can't wait to be back in office, people are missing the buzz of working in a great city. Especially now that we're on Liverpool Street instead of in vintner's place. Frankfurt being boring will always be a drag on its ability to attract people and the German tax system will continue to plague the minds of everyone who has ever had to deal with it.
That's a shame, though hopefully an isolated issue. Onwards and upwards, that's what I always say.
I think it varies considerably by age. My anecdote is the woman who (now) lives across the road, who works for a legal firm near Holborn. Her property here was a second home, where she spent her free time as and when she could; just before the first lockdown came in she did a SeanT and fled the capital for the island. She's been working at home, and hardly been back to London since. Her firm has said last autumn that the new remote working arrangements would continue to summer 2021, and just before Christmas has started offering people home working as new permanent arrangements. So she's not intending to return; she says she'll keep the London flat as a second home, but I reckon sooner or later the case for cashing in will see it sold.
Incidentally she went back to North London to take her father - who has also now moved down here from London, at least long-term temporarily - back to get vaccinated, and found that her flat-neighbours have sold up and moved to a farm in Wales.
Beyond anecdotes there are lots of anonymised staff surveys by organisations including my own. The pretty consistent result is that about 25-30% really like wfh (no commute being the big plus), 10-15% really hate it, and the balance would like to have a mix, going into work 2-3 times a week. Being more with family is both as plus and a minus - most people genuinely like their spouse and kids, joking aside, and with young ones especially the attraction of seeing more of them is huge. Against that, people with small homes and small kids find it really hard to work without disruption.
These attitudes may change when it's generally regarded as safe to be out and about. That will make it feel more natural to go to the office, but it will also remove the big downside that people quote about wfh, which is simply the monotony. If they can buzz around freely in their free time, I think that the proportion who genuinely prefer 100% wfh as the norm will exceed 50%.
Back to anecdotes, I know of three jobs where the employers specified in advertising and interview that they were completely relaxed about where the employees worked, so they could live somewhere cheap/agreeable and still do the job. The applicants who I know saw this as a big plus, which made up for slightly lower salaries. Obviously depends on the type of work - these were all in media/comms.
We need to know the reason why they weren't closed at that time. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Clapham omnibus knew it was the right thing to do.
If we had closed the borders as soon as it was clear infections were coming in from abroad thousands of deaths would have been avoided. Just look at NZ, Australia and Taiwan. So much easier for an island.
Look, we COULD NOT control our own borders until we'd fully left the EU. OK? So don't tell me the EU states shut their borders because that's a Remoaner Lie, and don't tell me we didn't act immediately to close our border once we Took Back Control cos that's also a Remoaner lie.
If we tried closing our borders during our stint in the EU the mad remoaners would say we're an anti European disgrace and the Labour party would be giving dogs abuse to our unEuropean PM. It's clear from recent news and during the migrant crisis that the only EU country allowed to close their borders when they see fit is Germany. Funny that.
We need to know the reason why they weren't closed at that time. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Clapham omnibus knew it was the right thing to do.
If we had closed the borders as soon as it was clear infections were coming in from abroad thousands of deaths would have been avoided. Just look at NZ, Australia and Taiwan. So much easier for an island.
I just don't think the country would have been receptive to such pre-emptive action in Jan/Feb/March. Perhaps March after lockdown. Steve Baker et al would have made that 80-seat majority look decidedly flimsy.
So the government decided to put thousands of lives at risk to appease the cranks on the Tory backbenches.
Closing the border would have had the effect of the current issues of Brexit multiplied by a large factor.
More Or Less starting on Radio 4, talking about the progress of the vaccination programme.
Suggesting deaths won't significantly reduce until March, and the reduction in ICU admissions will be small, as most ICU admissions are younger people
Yep - seems likely. Only when over 45 have been vaccinated plus a fortnight will the hospitalisation really drop off. In reality lockdown is here until mid march I suspect, if not a bit later.
The surprising factoid is that about three quarters of ICU admissions are below retirement age, many of them considerably younger. Explaining the scenes in ICU that recently sent our Leon into another panic.
Is it that the elderly die before they get there? Or that hospitals decide it isn't necessary or is less effective to put the very old into ICU?
Surely it's given 2 equally ill patient it's who will benefit most from ICU and is more likely to survive the experience.
Most of the over 70 (ish) who are very critically ill are not judged likely to benefit from being put on ventilation, due to the physical trauma of the process and thus the later prognosis.
However - hospitals are currently full of people between 45 and 75, many of whom have underlying health conditions, but NOTE - these conditions are (a) a bit overweight (b) a touch of diabeties (c) some heart issues. I suspect for some of these they thought that they would not be at risk if they caught it - 'I'm pretty healthy for my age, yes I carry a few pounds, and maybe I don't do as much exercise as I did...' Until the case drop in the community and we get the over 45s vaccinated, we are still going to find it very hard to undo lockdown.
We need to know the reason why they weren't closed at that time. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Clapham omnibus knew it was the right thing to do.
If we had closed the borders as soon as it was clear infections were coming in from abroad thousands of deaths would have been avoided. Just look at NZ, Australia and Taiwan. So much easier for an island.
I just don't think the country would have been receptive to such pre-emptive action in Jan/Feb/March. Perhaps March after lockdown. Steve Baker et al would have made that 80-seat majority look decidedly flimsy.
I think closing the borders would have got majority support among Tory MPs, easily. If it's the scientists who said don't close them then they're responsible for the second wave along with Boris. It was completely avoidable.
I'm not so sure - perhaps a majority but we are talking about a time when they didn't even close the tube or cancel Cheltenham. Are you saying Baker et al (there are plenty who would go along with him) would have said: "OK fine"?
I am still on a few FB groups of Cons Associations (god help me) and every other post is a Roger Scruton quote about giving up freedoms and whatever happened to the British people. And this is now ffs.
Elliott leaves HK, staff primarily transferred to their London office which will handle Asia. Some go to Tokyo.
Paris or Frankfurt didn't even figure. Odd that. Lol.
Do they have an office in FFT/Paris?!
Park St so much more civilised.
It's more the point that London, IMO, is going to be the like for like replacement to HK for Asia investment and companies will just deal with the timezone issues as they arise. Paris and Frankfurt aren't going to figure in this at all and to my mind if the EU tries to cut London off they simply isolate themselves rather than us.
Our regulatory guy has pointed out on a number of occasions that the EU not giving the UK equivalence will break the idea that the EU is a regulatory superpower so it's better for them to give it and hold onto the pretence.
I think the next year or so is going to be a chastening experience for European countries hoping to pick up the scraps.
I think that's overdoing it, especially as if more people are working from home, the fact that Frankfurt hasn't one single decent restaurant will matter less.
I never thought London would "lose" its dominance. But I can say that as recently as this morning I am aware of a contract not given to a UK firm by an EU institution because of data and infrastructure located outside the EU issues.
I think WFH is massively overdone. Anecdotally our lot can't wait to be back in office, people are missing the buzz of working in a great city. Especially now that we're on Liverpool Street instead of in vintner's place. Frankfurt being boring will always be a drag on its ability to attract people and the German tax system will continue to plague the minds of everyone who has ever had to deal with it.
That's a shame, though hopefully an isolated issue. Onwards and upwards, that's what I always say.
I think it varies considerably by age. My anecdote is the woman who (now) lives across the road, who works for a legal firm near Holborn. Her property here was a second home, where she spent her free time as and when she could; just before the first lockdown came in she did a SeanT and fled the capital for the island. She's been working at home, and hardly been back to London since. Her firm has said last autumn that the new remote working arrangements would continue to summer 2021, and just before Christmas has started offering people home working as new permanent arrangements. So she's not intending to return; she says she'll keep the London flat as a second home, but I reckon sooner or later the case for cashing in will see it sold.
Incidentally she went back to North London to take her father - who has also now moved down here from London, at least long-term temporarily - back to get vaccinated, and found that her flat-neighbours have sold up and moved to a farm in Wales.
I think it is age - but related to life phase.
If you have school age children, a stable marriage etc. moving to the sticks makes a lot of sense. If you can get around the commuting/job issues. Cheaper housing and more space at the same time, better/cheaper schools.
If you are single, starting out in the world etc, a house share, a moderate night bus ride away from the nightclubs, is practically mandatory.
State schools in London are generally better than elsewhere though. And in London kids have more opportunities for extracurricular activities and are less reliant on their parents for transport. And if they need to intern or study in London when they're young adults they can live at home and save on rent. I guess if you can't afford a decent sized house in London but can afford it outside it might make sense to move, otherwise you're better off here if you ask me. I certainly have no intention of moving.
R4 demonstrating that both Gove and Mordaunt's claims on fishing rights are false
Are they lying or clueless? Will be quite entertaining to hear Michael Gove tell an industry he literally grew up with that it doesn't know what it is talking about...
Difficult to know if it was the inability to make a logical/arithmetical deduction or deception (quote from the programme - that is not how numbers work).
The depressing thing for me is an earlier report on the drop in GDP showed we weren't as bad as we appeared compared to other EU countries because of the way the numbers were calculated (Ours were much worse but more accurate. If others were calculated in the same way we would all be clustering around one another). But who is going to believe a politician when they tell us this because of all the other misrepresentations they come out with.
I'm not sure what is worse, Trump's blatant lies, which we can all see for what they are, or our politicians utterances. They are both lies, but is much harder to recognise one, which I think surely makes it worse.
We need to know the reason why they weren't closed at that time. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Clapham omnibus knew it was the right thing to do.
If we had closed the borders as soon as it was clear infections were coming in from abroad thousands of deaths would have been avoided. Just look at NZ, Australia and Taiwan. So much easier for an island.
I just don't think the country would have been receptive to such pre-emptive action in Jan/Feb/March. Perhaps March after lockdown. Steve Baker et al would have made that 80-seat majority look decidedly flimsy.
So the government decided to put thousands of lives at risk to appease the cranks on the Tory backbenches.
We are talking Jan/Feb right? There were millions of people, I'm thinking, who felt similarly.
That is the wrath of a veangeful God, lashing out against inane consumerism.
(He's also secretly looking forward to the law suit....)
The more I see of stuff like Goop and Trumpism and the rest, the more I come to the Marxist view of organised religion.
It is the opiate of the masses. But, I think, it may be a good thing.
I am an atheist - not the ranting kind, such a s Dawkins - just don't believe.
But it seems to me, more and more, that organised religion had the function of controlling the belief set of the very large number of people who need such beliefs.
Without that organisation, they don't sit around discussing refinements to utilitarianism, as atheists.
They invent their own religions. Which involves repeating all the mistakes from previous attempts.
It must be possible to establish an evolutionary case - at least in more warlike times - for the survival benefirs of false beliefs that nevertheless bind communities together, and make it easier for older powerful men to persuade younger men, and their mothers, to sacrifice themselves in war.
A number of PhDs have been written on the interaction between religion and societal effectiveness. The emphasis is not so much on war, but creating a community that gets everyone co-operating. Lines up peoples minds, as it were.
Confucianism managed the same sort of thing without really being a religion (though has religious aspects). Conformity has its downsides, of course.
We need to know the reason why they weren't closed at that time. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Clapham omnibus knew it was the right thing to do.
If we had closed the borders as soon as it was clear infections were coming in from abroad thousands of deaths would have been avoided. Just look at NZ, Australia and Taiwan. So much easier for an island.
I just don't think the country would have been receptive to such pre-emptive action in Jan/Feb/March. Perhaps March after lockdown. Steve Baker et al would have made that 80-seat majority look decidedly flimsy.
I think closing the borders would have got majority support among Tory MPs, easily. If it's the scientists who said don't close them then they're responsible for the second wave along with Boris. It was completely avoidable.
I'm not so sure - perhaps a majority but we are talking about a time when they didn't even close the tube or cancel Cheltenham. Are you saying Baker et al (there are plenty who would go along with him) would have said: "OK fine"?
I am still on a few FB groups of Cons Associations (god help me) and every other post is a Roger Scruton quote about giving up freedoms and whatever happened to the British people. And this is now ffs.
We need to know the reason why they weren't closed at that time. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Clapham omnibus knew it was the right thing to do.
If we had closed the borders as soon as it was clear infections were coming in from abroad thousands of deaths would have been avoided. Just look at NZ, Australia and Taiwan. So much easier for an island.
I just don't think the country would have been receptive to such pre-emptive action in Jan/Feb/March. Perhaps March after lockdown. Steve Baker et al would have made that 80-seat majority look decidedly flimsy.
I think closing the borders would have got majority support among Tory MPs, easily. If it's the scientists who said don't close them then they're responsible for the second wave along with Boris. It was completely avoidable.
I suspect that there was a lot of discussion within the EU, many heads there wanting to open up tourism, both for their own economies and to reward their population with a sunny break after a torrid winter/spring of lockdowns.
I could envision a situation where the UK went along with it, thinking we would be rewarded with an easier ride on the Brexit negotiations.
We need to know the reason why they weren't closed at that time. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Clapham omnibus knew it was the right thing to do.
If we had closed the borders as soon as it was clear infections were coming in from abroad thousands of deaths would have been avoided. Just look at NZ, Australia and Taiwan. So much easier for an island.
Look, we COULD NOT control our own borders until we'd fully left the EU. OK? So don't tell me the EU states shut their borders because that's a Remoaner Lie, and don't tell me we didn't act immediately to close our border once we Took Back Control cos that's also a Remoaner lie.
If we tried closing our borders during our stint in the EU the mad remoaners would say we're an anti European disgrace and the Labour party would be giving dogs abuse to our unEuropean PM. It's clear from recent news and during the migrant crisis that the only EU country allowed to close their borders when they see fit is Germany. Funny that.
How does your "argument" stand up when various EU states rapidly closed their borders to each other...
We need to know the reason why they weren't closed at that time. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Clapham omnibus knew it was the right thing to do.
If we had closed the borders as soon as it was clear infections were coming in from abroad thousands of deaths would have been avoided. Just look at NZ, Australia and Taiwan. So much easier for an island.
I don't think we could have matched NZ and Australia, because of our location and population, but we might have done a hell of a lot better than we did.
That is the wrath of a veangeful God, lashing out against inane consumerism.
(He's also secretly looking forward to the law suit....)
The more I see of stuff like Goop and Trumpism and the rest, the more I come to the Marxist view of organised religion.
It is the opiate of the masses. But, I think, it may be a good thing.
I am an atheist - not the ranting kind, such a s Dawkins - just don't believe.
But it seems to me, more and more, that organised religion had the function of controlling the belief set of the very large number of people who need such beliefs.
Without that organisation, they don't sit around discussing refinements to utilitarianism, as atheists.
They invent their own religions. Which involves repeating all the mistakes from previous attempts.
It must be possible to establish an evolutionary case - at least in more warlike times - for the survival benefirs of false beliefs that nevertheless bind communities together, and make it easier for older powerful men to persuade younger men, and their mothers, to sacrifice themselves in war.
A number of PhDs have been written on the interaction between religion and societal effectiveness. The emphasis is not so much on war, but creating a community that gets everyone co-operating. Lines up peoples minds, as it were.
Confucianism managed the same sort of thing without really being a religion (though has religious aspects). Conformity has its downsides, of course.
Confucianism manages.
China remains a broadly confucian society under the CPC.
That is the wrath of a veangeful God, lashing out against inane consumerism.
(He's also secretly looking forward to the law suit....)
The more I see of stuff like Goop and Trumpism and the rest, the more I come to the Marxist view of organised religion.
It is the opiate of the masses. But, I think, it may be a good thing.
I am an atheist - not the ranting kind, such a s Dawkins - just don't believe.
But it seems to me, more and more, that organised religion had the function of controlling the belief set of the very large number of people who need such beliefs.
Without that organisation, they don't sit around discussing refinements to utilitarianism, as atheists.
They invent their own religions. Which involves repeating all the mistakes from previous attempts.
It must be possible to establish an evolutionary case - at least in more warlike times - for the survival benefirs of false beliefs that nevertheless bind communities together, and make it easier for older powerful men to persuade younger men, and their mothers, to sacrifice themselves in war.
A number of PhDs have been written on the interaction between religion and societal effectiveness. The emphasis is not so much on war, but creating a community that gets everyone co-operating. Lines up peoples minds, as it were.
Confucianism managed the same sort of thing without really being a religion (though has religious aspects). Conformity has its downsides, of course.
Elliott leaves HK, staff primarily transferred to their London office which will handle Asia. Some go to Tokyo.
Paris or Frankfurt didn't even figure. Odd that. Lol.
Do they have an office in FFT/Paris?!
Park St so much more civilised.
It's more the point that London, IMO, is going to be the like for like replacement to HK for Asia investment and companies will just deal with the timezone issues as they arise. Paris and Frankfurt aren't going to figure in this at all and to my mind if the EU tries to cut London off they simply isolate themselves rather than us.
Our regulatory guy has pointed out on a number of occasions that the EU not giving the UK equivalence will break the idea that the EU is a regulatory superpower so it's better for them to give it and hold onto the pretence.
I think the next year or so is going to be a chastening experience for European countries hoping to pick up the scraps.
I think that's overdoing it, especially as if more people are working from home, the fact that Frankfurt hasn't one single decent restaurant will matter less.
I never thought London would "lose" its dominance. But I can say that as recently as this morning I am aware of a contract not given to a UK firm by an EU institution because of data and infrastructure located outside the EU issues.
I think WFH is massively overdone. Anecdotally our lot can't wait to be back in office, people are missing the buzz of working in a great city. Especially now that we're on Liverpool Street instead of in vintner's place. Frankfurt being boring will always be a drag on its ability to attract people and the German tax system will continue to plague the minds of everyone who has ever had to deal with it.
That's a shame, though hopefully an isolated issue. Onwards and upwards, that's what I always say.
I think it varies considerably by age. My anecdote is the woman who (now) lives across the road, who works for a legal firm near Holborn. Her property here was a second home, where she spent her free time as and when she could; just before the first lockdown came in she did a SeanT and fled the capital for the island. She's been working at home, and hardly been back to London since. Her firm has said last autumn that the new remote working arrangements would continue to summer 2021, and just before Christmas has started offering people home working as new permanent arrangements. So she's not intending to return; she says she'll keep the London flat as a second home, but I reckon sooner or later the case for cashing in will see it sold.
Incidentally she went back to North London to take her father - who has also now moved down here from London, at least long-term temporarily - back to get vaccinated, and found that her flat-neighbours have sold up and moved to a farm in Wales.
Beyond anecdotes there are lots of anonymised staff surveys by organisations including my own. The pretty consistent result is that about 25-30% really like wfh (no commute being the big plus), 10-15% really hate it, and the balance would like to have a mix, going into work 2-3 times a week. Being more with family is both as plus and a minus - most people genuinely like their spouse and kids, joking aside, and with young ones especially the attraction of seeing more of them is huge. Against that, people with small homes and small kids find it really hard to work without disruption.
These attitudes may change when it's generally regarded as safe to be out and about. That will make it feel more natural to go to the office, but it will also remove the big downside that people quote about wfh, which is simply the monotony. If they can buzz around freely in their free time, I think that the proportion who genuinely prefer 100% wfh as the norm will exceed 50%.
Back to anecdotes, I know of three jobs where the employers specified in advertising and interview that they were completely relaxed about where the employees worked, so they could live somewhere cheap/agreeable and still do the job. The applicants who I know saw this as a big plus, which made up for slightly lower salaries. Obviously depends on the type of work - these were all in media/comms.
But your organisation isn't in a large city - but a small town in Surrey? Not really commuting as such.
Elliott leaves HK, staff primarily transferred to their London office which will handle Asia. Some go to Tokyo.
Paris or Frankfurt didn't even figure. Odd that. Lol.
Do they have an office in FFT/Paris?!
Park St so much more civilised.
It's more the point that London, IMO, is going to be the like for like replacement to HK for Asia investment and companies will just deal with the timezone issues as they arise. Paris and Frankfurt aren't going to figure in this at all and to my mind if the EU tries to cut London off they simply isolate themselves rather than us.
Our regulatory guy has pointed out on a number of occasions that the EU not giving the UK equivalence will break the idea that the EU is a regulatory superpower so it's better for them to give it and hold onto the pretence.
I think the next year or so is going to be a chastening experience for European countries hoping to pick up the scraps.
I can easily see the EU being vindictive enough not to give us equivalence, even though it has for Singapore and New York, just because it can; it fears London and thinks it would help its own FS industry.
But, whilst that would hurt a bit, the City is big and ugly enough to take care of itself on the world stage.
It doesn't matter where it comes from. What matters is what the voting public now thinks. It is not in the gift of a government to make a promise over the heads of future voters.
It can - as it did in 2019 - say to potential voters "we will not have a vote on this matter again during the term of the next Government." And it was given an 80 seat majority, across the whole of the UK. A UK the Scots chose to remain a part of in 2014.
So why should a tiny subset of those UK voters - those who voted SNP - have the right to override the recently-expressed wishes of the rest?
As in Catalonia/Ukraine/ex-Yugoslavia, there is a problem with self-determination that if a majority in one area feel distinctively different and want their own country, while nearly everyone else in their current country dislikes the idea, what should be done? Fortunately we aren't in a country where nationalist feelings on both sides lead to actual wars, but simply saying "Suck it up, losers" isn't a viable long-term policy either. I hate nationalism and think the SNP, Plaid, English nationalists. etc. are all varying degrees of bonkers (and I'd have been fine with Britain being part of a European state), but in the end if there's a settled majority in an area that want to be separate, I think that has to be respected, in the same way as the Brexit vote needs to be respected.
Elliott leaves HK, staff primarily transferred to their London office which will handle Asia. Some go to Tokyo.
Paris or Frankfurt didn't even figure. Odd that. Lol.
Do they have an office in FFT/Paris?!
Park St so much more civilised.
It's more the point that London, IMO, is going to be the like for like replacement to HK for Asia investment and companies will just deal with the timezone issues as they arise. Paris and Frankfurt aren't going to figure in this at all and to my mind if the EU tries to cut London off they simply isolate themselves rather than us.
Our regulatory guy has pointed out on a number of occasions that the EU not giving the UK equivalence will break the idea that the EU is a regulatory superpower so it's better for them to give it and hold onto the pretence.
I think the next year or so is going to be a chastening experience for European countries hoping to pick up the scraps.
I think that's overdoing it, especially as if more people are working from home, the fact that Frankfurt hasn't one single decent restaurant will matter less.
I never thought London would "lose" its dominance. But I can say that as recently as this morning I am aware of a contract not given to a UK firm by an EU institution because of data and infrastructure located outside the EU issues.
I think WFH is massively overdone. Anecdotally our lot can't wait to be back in office, people are missing the buzz of working in a great city. Especially now that we're on Liverpool Street instead of in vintner's place. Frankfurt being boring will always be a drag on its ability to attract people and the German tax system will continue to plague the minds of everyone who has ever had to deal with it.
That's a shame, though hopefully an isolated issue. Onwards and upwards, that's what I always say.
I think it varies considerably by age. My anecdote is the woman who (now) lives across the road, who works for a legal firm near Holborn. Her property here was a second home, where she spent her free time as and when she could; just before the first lockdown came in she did a SeanT and fled the capital for the island. She's been working at home, and hardly been back to London since. Her firm has said last autumn that the new remote working arrangements would continue to summer 2021, and just before Christmas has started offering people home working as new permanent arrangements. So she's not intending to return; she says she'll keep the London flat as a second home, but I reckon sooner or later the case for cashing in will see it sold.
Incidentally she went back to North London to take her father - who has also now moved down here from London, at least long-term temporarily - back to get vaccinated, and found that her flat-neighbours have sold up and moved to a farm in Wales.
Beyond anecdotes there are lots of anonymised staff surveys by organisations including my own. The pretty consistent result is that about 25-30% really like wfh (no commute being the big plus), 10-15% really hate it, and the balance would like to have a mix, going into work 2-3 times a week. Being more with family is both as plus and a minus - most people genuinely like their spouse and kids, joking aside, and with young ones especially the attraction of seeing more of them is huge. Against that, people with small homes and small kids find it really hard to work without disruption.
These attitudes may change when it's generally regarded as safe to be out and about. That will make it feel more natural to go to the office, but it will also remove the big downside that people quote about wfh, which is simply the monotony. If they can buzz around freely in their free time, I think that the proportion who genuinely prefer 100% wfh as the norm will exceed 50%.
Back to anecdotes, I know of three jobs where the employers specified in advertising and interview that they were completely relaxed about where the employees worked, so they could live somewhere cheap/agreeable and still do the job. The applicants who I know saw this as a big plus, which made up for slightly lower salaries. Obviously depends on the type of work - these were all in media/comms.
Where you work, physically, is only one part of recruitment. Particularly in something like media & comms where having a cultural and social fit for the country and its customers is pretty essential to be effective.
We've been here before in the last 20 years in outsourcing UK customer services support to India. It didn't prove very popular.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
Sounds horrid.
She should make sure he is getting large doses of zinc, and Vitamin D. This health advise really isn't getting out there at the moment sadly.
It doesn't matter where it comes from. What matters is what the voting public now thinks. It is not in the gift of a government to make a promise over the heads of future voters.
It can - as it did in 2019 - say to potential voters "we will not have a vote on this matter again during the term of the next Government." And it was given an 80 seat majority, across the whole of the UK. A UK the Scots chose to remain a part of in 2014.
So why should a tiny subset of those UK voters - those who voted SNP - have the right to override the recently-expressed wishes of the rest?
As in Catalonia/Ukraine/ex-Yugoslavia, there is a problem with self-determination that if a majority in one area feel distinctively different and want their own country, while nearly everyone else in their current country dislikes the idea, what should be done? Fortunately we aren't in a country where nationalist feelings on both sides lead to actual wars, but simply saying "Suck it up, losers" isn't a viable long-term policy either. I hate nationalism and think the SNP, Plaid, English nationalists. etc. are all varying degrees of bonkers (and I'd have been fine with Britain being part of a European state), but in the end if there's a settled majority in an area that want to be separate, I think that has to be respected, in the same way as the Brexit vote needs to be respected.
If your argument is that the majority has to be "settled", then clearly just one referendum to secede won't meet that criteria, if it follows on from one only a few years earlier that rejected secession.
The other problem is that you have to be sure that the terms on which they want to secede are shared. At the moment, for example, Scottish secession is being sold on the premise that Scotland would be debt free with the remainder of the UK left to service the entire UK national debt as now. That is clearly not going to be the cases. The starting point for allocating shares of debt should be the Barnett Formula, consistent with the long established basis for allocating shares of public spending.
The other problem is that you have to be sure that the terms on which they want to secede are shared. At the moment, for example, Scottish secession is being sold on the premise that Scotland would be debt free with the remainder of the UK left to service the entire UK national debt as now. That is clearly not going to be the cases.
As with Brexit, truth has no place in the campaign
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
It doesn't matter where it comes from. What matters is what the voting public now thinks. It is not in the gift of a government to make a promise over the heads of future voters.
It can - as it did in 2019 - say to potential voters "we will not have a vote on this matter again during the term of the next Government." And it was given an 80 seat majority, across the whole of the UK. A UK the Scots chose to remain a part of in 2014.
So why should a tiny subset of those UK voters - those who voted SNP - have the right to override the recently-expressed wishes of the rest?
As in Catalonia/Ukraine/ex-Yugoslavia, there is a problem with self-determination that if a majority in one area feel distinctively different and want their own country, while nearly everyone else in their current country dislikes the idea, what should be done? Fortunately we aren't in a country where nationalist feelings on both sides lead to actual wars, but simply saying "Suck it up, losers" isn't a viable long-term policy either. I hate nationalism and think the SNP, Plaid, English nationalists. etc. are all varying degrees of bonkers (and I'd have been fine with Britain being part of a European state), but in the end if there's a settled majority in an area that want to be separate, I think that has to be respected, in the same way as the Brexit vote needs to be respected.
I have sympathy for a Government that offered a vote to the Scots, who then chose to stay in the UK, saying "we have respected your majority on the specific question. The SNP is not the equivalent of the answer to that specific question. " How often does the question get asked? Once in a generation? Every ten years? Every five? Every Parliament? Every year? Every month?"
One of the reasons we left the EU was because of their failure to respect referendum results - keep asking the voters the same question until they give the right answer.
Can we run a book on the following - a politician in the UK trying to put a very high end electric vehicle on expenses on the grounds that she/he needs the performance.
Remember the launch of the iPad? Cries of a digital divide and apparently every politician needed one for work.
On topic: I agree with the Republicans who think it best to treat the Trump tenure as one would an embarrassing fart. "Pretend it never happened", as the header says.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
On topic: I agree with the Republicans who think it best to treat the Trump tenure as one would an embarrassing fart. "Pretend it never happened", as the header says.
Neither Trump, nor their opponents, are willing to let that happen.
How often does the question get asked? Once in a generation? Every ten years? Every five? Every Parliament? Every year? Every month?"
As often as the people demand it
Unfortuntely so. It's a bugger, but if they can reasonably say it is what people want - and they are being pretty unequivocal on what a vote for them means - then that is that.
On topic: I agree with the Republicans who think it best to treat the Trump tenure as one would an embarrassing fart. "Pretend it never happened", as the header says.
Neither Trump, nor their opponents, are willing to let that happen.
I think many of the latter would if they could, but the former won't let them. Which is good, it will ensure the confrontation happens (and hopefully conviction too).
It doesn't matter where it comes from. What matters is what the voting public now thinks. It is not in the gift of a government to make a promise over the heads of future voters.
It can - as it did in 2019 - say to potential voters "we will not have a vote on this matter again during the term of the next Government." And it was given an 80 seat majority, across the whole of the UK. A UK the Scots chose to remain a part of in 2014.
So why should a tiny subset of those UK voters - those who voted SNP - have the right to override the recently-expressed wishes of the rest?
As in Catalonia/Ukraine/ex-Yugoslavia, there is a problem with self-determination that if a majority in one area feel distinctively different and want their own country, while nearly everyone else in their current country dislikes the idea, what should be done? Fortunately we aren't in a country where nationalist feelings on both sides lead to actual wars, but simply saying "Suck it up, losers" isn't a viable long-term policy either. I hate nationalism and think the SNP, Plaid, English nationalists. etc. are all varying degrees of bonkers (and I'd have been fine with Britain being part of a European state), but in the end if there's a settled majority in an area that want to be separate, I think that has to be respected, in the same way as the Brexit vote needs to be respected.
I have sympathy for a Government that offered a vote to the Scots, who then chose to stay in the UK, saying "we have respected your majority on the specific question. The SNP is not the equivalent of the answer to that specific question. " How often does the question get asked? Once in a generation? Every ten years? Every five? Every Parliament? Every year? Every month?"
One of the reasons we left the EU was because of their failure to respect referendum results - keep asking the voters the same question until they give the right answer.
Except there's a difference between Scotland and the EU.
The EU got a result they didn't like and rather than accepting it immediately said "that result was wrong, do it again and get it right". Scotland hasn't done that, they accepted the result and then a couple of years later there was a very significant change that made it worth revisiting the question. As far as I know there was never a manifesto commitment within the EU to ask the question again, it was just done.
As for how often to ask the question that is up to the voters of Scotland surely? If they don't want to have another poll they don't need to elect a government pledging one. If they do, that is their choice. I don't prejudge future elections - no Parliament can bind its successor. Once per Parliament as a maximum is reasonable (which is where the EU got it wrong since they never went back to the public with a new manifesto commitment) but that's the maximum, at a minimum it could be never again if the public never again give separatists a majority.
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
I've got to sell our 2011 diesel this year, not looking forward to what we'll get for it. Thinking of going electric although with no off-street parking it may not be very practical.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
That is the wrath of a veangeful God, lashing out against inane consumerism.
(He's also secretly looking forward to the law suit....)
The more I see of stuff like Goop and Trumpism and the rest, the more I come to the Marxist view of organised religion.
It is the opiate of the masses. But, I think, it may be a good thing.
I am an atheist - not the ranting kind, such a s Dawkins - just don't believe.
But it seems to me, more and more, that organised religion had the function of controlling the belief set of the very large number of people who need such beliefs.
Without that organisation, they don't sit around discussing refinements to utilitarianism, as atheists.
They invent their own religions. Which involves repeating all the mistakes from previous attempts.
It must be possible to establish an evolutionary case - at least in more warlike times - for the survival benefirs of false beliefs that nevertheless bind communities together, and make it easier for older powerful men to persuade younger men, and their mothers, to sacrifice themselves in war.
A number of PhDs have been written on the interaction between religion and societal effectiveness. The emphasis is not so much on war, but creating a community that gets everyone co-operating. Lines up peoples minds, as it were.
Confucianism managed the same sort of thing without really being a religion (though has religious aspects). Conformity has its downsides, of course.
Confucianism manages.
China remains a broadly confucian society under the CPC.
Yes, but confucian influence is present in far less repressive societies, and goes some way to account for the work ethic in various SE Asian countries.
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
No, the poor all get new Kias on Motorbility, it's the hardworking privateers who are trying to make a crust who drive 5 year old Diesel Estates, as their works van.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
Yes they were. They reported efficacy by date. They reported when efficacy started. This is all in their data.
On topic: I agree with the Republicans who think it best to treat the Trump tenure as one would an embarrassing fart. "Pretend it never happened", as the header says.
The poisonous stench lingers, though, and requires some serious ventilation.
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
Can I have a translation into English please?
@Dura_Ace has had to swap to a more recent Hoon-mobile.
I like that the alloys are named after the "Oh Fook - where did the internet go?" failure message.
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
Price of newer diseasals as well. My 2018 Volvo S90 is in negative equity despite being bought with a 1/3rd discount as a pre-reg. It isn't getting a lot of use at the moment, but as that will change once we move north I'm not looking to chop it in.
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Also, the efficacy applies to infection on each day, right? With serious symptoms on day 4 already, the infection would have happened before the vaccine. There's nothing the vaccine can do if the virus gets in first, and very little if it gets in soon after.
I do hope the vaccination centres are well ventilated though ...
We need to know the reason why they weren't closed at that time. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Clapham omnibus knew it was the right thing to do.
Plane traffic was down 99% in the first lockdown so it could not have made much difference to close it during that period. It is fanciful to suggest there was political (or scientific) will to do it before lockdown started, repatriating the Brits abroad was difficult enough without it having been done way before people expected.
The interesting one was when it re-opened why were there so few controls? Other countries were doing testing and enforced quarantine, yet we chose corridors and de facto "suggested" quarantine, and pretty much encouraged people to resume summer holidays. We see it again with ryanair and their jab and go adverts, not sure they should be allowed, they are certainly not responsible.
Completely off topic, and maybe not of interest to many on here. Anneliese Dodds, who according to most on here is useless, gave what I thought was a rather good, and serious, speech last week; it made me think she could be a rather good Chancellor. The speech is here:
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
What tf do you tow with a 3 series BMW, if that's what that is?
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
Can I have a translation into English please?
My old diesels were rapidly becoming worth fucking buttons so I disposed of them. I bought a much newer one which is aesthetically displeasing to me but has great performance.
On topic: I agree with the Republicans who think it best to treat the Trump tenure as one would an embarrassing fart. "Pretend it never happened", as the header says.
Neither Trump, nor their opponents, are willing to let that happen.
If Trump has taught us anything it is surely that we can choose the reality we live in, and share it with millions of others through social media.
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
How large is you garage ?
120m2 with 2 x lifts and an alignment jig. Also got a barn full of Porsche and BMW bits.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
Depreciation isn't something I'm particularly worrying about with my 09 reg Peugeot. The misses scraped the side along the driveway gates but I think the cost of getting a new door would be worth more than the car. So it's essentially worthless, but still gets me from A to B as mechanically I've looked after it...
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Also, the efficacy applies to infection on each day, right? With serious symptoms on day 4 already, the infection would have happened before the vaccine. There's nothing the vaccine can do if the virus gets in first, and very little if it gets in soon after.
I do hope the vaccination centres are well ventilated though ...
It is my understanding that a specification was created for vaccination and distancing for vaccination centres.
My GP rebuilt part of her surgery, over Christmas to meet this. Moved internal walls etc.
Doesn't getting Covid give you better protection than getting vaccinated?
A recent paper in the BMJ says that infection gives 85% protection for at least 5 months. The Israelis have reported that the Pfizer jab gives 33% protection after one dose which is less than reported by Pfizer, so yes infection can potentially give you better protection.
I have a feeling that scientific advice from the likes of SAGE tends not to conflict with what the public wants to hear. How effective exactly are most vaccines for most viruses? They are highly effective for a few diseases like smallpox which does not mutate very much, but there are no vaccines for many diseases and a lot of new vaccines are failures in trials.
COVID does mutate so vaccines may not be very effective against it. Natural immunity acquired from infection is still quite good though. Vaccines may work well in the lab, but in real life they may be less effective.
Over the last week I have been commenting on the issue with over 80s not all receiving vaccinations before lower priority groups.
Earlier this week our main local vaccination centre which only got up and running last Friday appparently ran out of vaccines and had to suspend operations. It quickly got back up and running again. This may explain the poor number yesterday if replicated across the country?
My 84yo father-in-law emailed the GP who runs the local surgery yesterday asking for a status update. He received a phone call this morning and is now booked in on Friday morning. Interestingly not at the local vaccination centre but another one which we did not think he would be going to.
Also my 78yo father had yesterday booked into one of the mass vaccination sites quite a drive away on 1st February. He called up his local surgery and said it was a bit of a drive and they offered him a jab in the town he lives in 2 hours time.
Clearly despite telling people not to call up and ask, raising questions seems to miraculously get people their vaccinations sooner!
I've noticed the price of older diesels is cratering. I've parted out my E46 and sold my F90 3 series. Now got a hideous F34 in Saphirschwarz on Style 404s for my tow rig because it was the only auto 335d I could find. 630 torques tho...
I'm feeling a bit smug on that as when we bought our Avensis in 2015 I went out of may way to find a petrol version which was a bit of a struggle as most of them were diesel at that time. The fuel economy's a bit crap though, you lose on fuel what you gain on depreciation. But you can feel better about the pollution you are not causing.
In Pox news a friend of mine's OH is ill in bed with Covid. "He's shaking uncontrollably, dripping with sweat, aching from head to toe, a bad cough, no sense of smell or taste, a pounding headache"
He received the first dose of the vaccine as he is a social worker operating in the care sector. Vaccinated Wednesday, symptomatic Sunday, tested positive late Sunday. Others in his office also in the same boat.
One of those grotty edge cases where the vaccine was done just after he caught Covid itself.
Awful news but you need to be careful that stories like that aren't read the wrong way and people avoid being vaccinated because of it.
Oh absolutely. Its not an anti-vax warning, its an anti-cocking about warning.
The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way.
It's however very likely that a lot of people will not understand the issues and will read it a very different way and then use social media to amplifier this story for their own ends.
See 5g and the idea that the vaccine has a chip in it as other examples.
tbf no one understands the issues of single jab efficacy.
Was that anything to do with what I was saying?
Or are you trying to imply that having the jab when infected makes things worse?
You said "because we understand how these things work".
I was pointing out that you do not understand how these things work.
Err, yes we do.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
There has been no trial to confirm your assertions.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
They were not testing for that and it was not part of the trial design so no.
They were testing for efficacy, and what level of efficacy was achieved, when. Hence graphs like this, in the papers published -
Precisely. Day 4 is before efficacy behins that is in their data.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I also don't even get where the single jab comment came from.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I think the problem is that data coming out of Israel (for example) suggests that levels of protection in elderly populations might be considerably lower than that.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
The WH24 market is up on Betfair. I'm hoping to lay some early mug money from punters who think Donald Trump will be in the mix for the GOP nomination.
My sister's husband and another of her daughter's have now succumbed to the dreaded pox, making 4 of the 5 household members in total (the 5th member probably had an asymptomatic infection when living elsewhere last April).
Meanwhile 7 members of the school's staff have now tested positive and the school has now closed.
Doesn't getting Covid give you better protection than getting vaccinated?
A recent paper in the BMJ says that infection gives 85% protection for at least 5 months. The Israelis have reported that the Pfizer jab gives 33% protection after one dose which is less than reported by Pfizer, so yes infection can potentially give you better protection.
I have a feeling that scientific advice from the likes of SAGE tends not to conflict with what the public wants to hear. How effective exactly are most vaccines for most viruses? They are highly effective for a few diseases like smallpox which does not mutate very much, but there are no vaccines for many diseases and a lot of new vaccines are failures in trials.
COVID does mutate so vaccines may not be very effective against it. Natural immunity acquired from infection is still quite good though. Vaccines may work well in the lab, but in real life they may be less effective.
The final stage vaccine trials involved giving people, living their normal lives, the vaccine or a placebo. Then seeing what happened.
Couple of new papers out - one of which is (I think) the first to look at the performance of vaccine induced antibodies (as opposed to convalescent serum ones) against various viral mutations.
O/t, but possibly betting related. I'm advised of the existence of a horse called 'Getaway Trump' which his trainer thinks 'has a decent race within his grasp under the right conditions'.
The WH24 market is up on Betfair. I'm hoping to lay some early mug money from punters who think Donald Trump will be in the mix for the GOP nomination.
History tells us there will be a long, long tail of mugs willing to back him. You'll probably still be able to lay him for next President after he's dead.
Doesn't getting Covid give you better protection than getting vaccinated?
A recent paper in the BMJ says that infection gives 85% protection for at least 5 months. The Israelis have reported that the Pfizer jab gives 33% protection after one dose which is less than reported by Pfizer, so yes infection can potentially give you better protection.
I have a feeling that scientific advice from the likes of SAGE tends not to conflict with what the public wants to hear. How effective exactly are most vaccines for most viruses? They are highly effective for a few diseases like smallpox which does not mutate very much, but there are no vaccines for many diseases and a lot of new vaccines are failures in trials.
COVID does mutate so vaccines may not be very effective against it. Natural immunity acquired from infection is still quite good though. Vaccines may work well in the lab, but in real life they may be less effective.
Let's face it, Johnson's government lied through its teeth about the efficacy of vaccines to get the blanket four month lockdown it wanted.
In the summer restrictions will be eased, and then tightened again in the autumn when new strains threaten.
I don't foresee how we get out of this this cycle under this government. Most people don't seem to care right now.
Elliott leaves HK, staff primarily transferred to their London office which will handle Asia. Some go to Tokyo.
Paris or Frankfurt didn't even figure. Odd that. Lol.
Do they have an office in FFT/Paris?!
Park St so much more civilised.
It's more the point that London, IMO, is going to be the like for like replacement to HK for Asia investment and companies will just deal with the timezone issues as they arise. Paris and Frankfurt aren't going to figure in this at all and to my mind if the EU tries to cut London off they simply isolate themselves rather than us.
Our regulatory guy has pointed out on a number of occasions that the EU not giving the UK equivalence will break the idea that the EU is a regulatory superpower so it's better for them to give it and hold onto the pretence.
I think the next year or so is going to be a chastening experience for European countries hoping to pick up the scraps.
I think that's overdoing it, especially as if more people are working from home, the fact that Frankfurt hasn't one single decent restaurant will matter less.
I never thought London would "lose" its dominance. But I can say that as recently as this morning I am aware of a contract not given to a UK firm by an EU institution because of data and infrastructure located outside the EU issues.
I think WFH is massively overdone. Anecdotally our lot can't wait to be back in office, people are missing the buzz of working in a great city. Especially now that we're on Liverpool Street instead of in vintner's place. Frankfurt being boring will always be a drag on its ability to attract people and the German tax system will continue to plague the minds of everyone who has ever had to deal with it.
That's a shame, though hopefully an isolated issue. Onwards and upwards, that's what I always say.
I think it varies considerably by age. My anecdote is the woman who (now) lives across the road, who works for a legal firm near Holborn. Her property here was a second home, where she spent her free time as and when she could; just before the first lockdown came in she did a SeanT and fled the capital for the island. She's been working at home, and hardly been back to London since. Her firm has said last autumn that the new remote working arrangements would continue to summer 2021, and just before Christmas has started offering people home working as new permanent arrangements. So she's not intending to return; she says she'll keep the London flat as a second home, but I reckon sooner or later the case for cashing in will see it sold.
Incidentally she went back to North London to take her father - who has also now moved down here from London, at least long-term temporarily - back to get vaccinated, and found that her flat-neighbours have sold up and moved to a farm in Wales.
Beyond anecdotes there are lots of anonymised staff surveys by organisations including my own. The pretty consistent result is that about 25-30% really like wfh (no commute being the big plus), 10-15% really hate it, and the balance would like to have a mix, going into work 2-3 times a week. Being more with family is both as plus and a minus - most people genuinely like their spouse and kids, joking aside, and with young ones especially the attraction of seeing more of them is huge. Against that, people with small homes and small kids find it really hard to work without disruption.
These attitudes may change when it's generally regarded as safe to be out and about. That will make it feel more natural to go to the office, but it will also remove the big downside that people quote about wfh, which is simply the monotony. If they can buzz around freely in their free time, I think that the proportion who genuinely prefer 100% wfh as the norm will exceed 50%.
Back to anecdotes, I know of three jobs where the employers specified in advertising and interview that they were completely relaxed about where the employees worked, so they could live somewhere cheap/agreeable and still do the job. The applicants who I know saw this as a big plus, which made up for slightly lower salaries. Obviously depends on the type of work - these were all in media/comms.
I'd be one of the mix ones. Going in twice a week would be the ideal balance between actually seeing people and bouncing ideas off them, and getting my head down with fewer interruptions at home and being around family. Permanent wfh does pall for me after a while.
Comments
These attitudes may change when it's generally regarded as safe to be out and about. That will make it feel more natural to go to the office, but it will also remove the big downside that people quote about wfh, which is simply the monotony. If they can buzz around freely in their free time, I think that the proportion who genuinely prefer 100% wfh as the norm will exceed 50%.
Back to anecdotes, I know of three jobs where the employers specified in advertising and interview that they were completely relaxed about where the employees worked, so they could live somewhere cheap/agreeable and still do the job. The applicants who I know saw this as a big plus, which made up for slightly lower salaries. Obviously depends on the type of work - these were all in media/comms.
However - hospitals are currently full of people between 45 and 75, many of whom have underlying health conditions, but NOTE - these conditions are (a) a bit overweight (b) a touch of diabeties (c) some heart issues. I suspect for some of these they thought that they would not be at risk if they caught it - 'I'm pretty healthy for my age, yes I carry a few pounds, and maybe I don't do as much exercise as I did...' Until the case drop in the community and we get the over 45s vaccinated, we are still going to find it very hard to undo lockdown.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1351811121594957824?s=19
I am still on a few FB groups of Cons Associations (god help me) and every other post is a Roger Scruton quote about giving up freedoms and whatever happened to the British people. And this is now ffs.
The depressing thing for me is an earlier report on the drop in GDP showed we weren't as bad as we appeared compared to other EU countries because of the way the numbers were calculated (Ours were much worse but more accurate. If others were calculated in the same way we would all be clustering around one another). But who is going to believe a politician when they tell us this because of all the other misrepresentations they come out with.
I'm not sure what is worse, Trump's blatant lies, which we can all see for what they are, or our politicians utterances. They are both lies, but is much harder to recognise one, which I think surely makes it worse.
I could envision a situation where the UK went along with it, thinking we would be rewarded with an easier ride on the Brexit negotiations.
Short-sighted all round.
China remains a broadly confucian society under the CPC.
But, whilst that would hurt a bit, the City is big and ugly enough to take care of itself on the world stage.
We've been here before in the last 20 years in outsourcing UK customer services support to India. It didn't prove very popular.
We understand there is essentially no efficacy the week you get the first jab. Jabbed on wednesday, symptomatic on sunday, simply isn't a big enough time window to have ever had the second jab - or for the first jab to start working yet. We do understand that.
Indeed symptomatic on Sunday quite possibly means was infected around Tuesday. Unfortunate timing.
Hope your friends OH gets better ASAP and your friend stays well too RP.
She should make sure he is getting large doses of zinc, and Vitamin D. This health advise really isn't getting out there at the moment sadly.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-clean-air-zone-cars-4902934.amp
The other problem is that you have to be sure that the terms on which they want to secede are shared. At the moment, for example, Scottish secession is being sold on the premise that Scotland would be debt free with the remainder of the UK left to service the entire UK national debt as now. That is clearly not going to be the cases. The starting point for allocating shares of debt should be the Barnett Formula, consistent with the long established basis for allocating shares of public spending.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55709115
Although I suspect it's got far more to do with where is best to put very major investment in place rather than Brexit as a whole.
One of Germany, France or the UK is going to have to get their cheque books out.
One of the reasons we left the EU was because of their failure to respect referendum results - keep asking the voters the same question until they give the right answer.
Remember the launch of the iPad? Cries of a digital divide and apparently every politician needed one for work.
Yes there has been. The official trial confirmed it.
Jabbed on Wednesday, count that as day 0, symptomatic on Sunday, count that as day 4. In every single trial the data exists to show what happens 4 days after initial jab.
The trial data showed essentially zero efficiacy on day 4. It is to be expected. Not a single person in the trial got a second jab by day 4.
If you were saying nothing has confirmed the impact if you don't get a second jab on day 21 and then there's an infection on day 25 then that would be true. But whether he would or would not receive a second jab on day 21 is immaterial to an infection on day 4 - it was within the original trial parameters.
The EU got a result they didn't like and rather than accepting it immediately said "that result was wrong, do it again and get it right". Scotland hasn't done that, they accepted the result and then a couple of years later there was a very significant change that made it worth revisiting the question. As far as I know there was never a manifesto commitment within the EU to ask the question again, it was just done.
As for how often to ask the question that is up to the voters of Scotland surely? If they don't want to have another poll they don't need to elect a government pledging one. If they do, that is their choice. I don't prejudge future elections - no Parliament can bind its successor. Once per Parliament as a maximum is reasonable (which is where the EU got it wrong since they never went back to the public with a new manifesto commitment) but that's the maximum, at a minimum it could be never again if the public never again give separatists a majority.
https://twitter.com/HighwaysYORKS/status/1351495596897611777
I like that the alloys are named after the "Oh Fook - where did the internet go?" failure message.
Had it been day 25 and second dose had been skipped then Topping would have had a point.
It's also silly because there was never under any circumstances going to be a second dose by day 4 so it's meaningless fluff.
I do hope the vaccination centres are well ventilated though ...
The interesting one was when it re-opened why were there so few controls? Other countries were doing testing and enforced quarantine, yet we chose corridors and de facto "suggested" quarantine, and pretty much encouraged people to resume summer holidays. We see it again with ryanair and their jab and go adverts, not sure they should be allowed, they are certainly not responsible.
https://labourlist.org/2021/01/mais-lecture-labours-cast-iron-commitment-to-delivering-value-for-money/
Interestingly, somebody over at Conservative Home agrees that it was a rather good (and unthreatening) critique of government policy:
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/01/ryan-bourne-a-reassuringly-conservative-speech-from-starmers-shadow-chancellor-the-tories-will-need-to-up-their-game.html
Sunak should watch out if even Conservative Home is rating his opponent.
Annual elections to decide whether to remain in Indy Scotland. That should give them a chunky choke chain over the Central Belt...
Reading the news today. summer is looking a bit optimistic.
We are discussing the very first part of this graph during which period (the 1st 10/14 days) there is zero difference between those who received the vaccine and those that received the placebo.
The second jab wouldn't be done before 21 days in the first place and that's been delayed for the reasons I set out last week and yesterday.
Better a 60% chance of protection for 20 people than a 90% chance of protection for 10 people.
And at the moment maximising the number of people protected is the most important issue.
So it would be very useful if Topping actual explained his point rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I reckon I will still be nearer the bull.
My GP rebuilt part of her surgery, over Christmas to meet this. Moved internal walls etc.
I have a feeling that scientific advice from the likes of SAGE tends not to conflict with what the public wants to hear. How effective exactly are most vaccines for most viruses? They are highly effective for a few diseases like smallpox which does not mutate very much, but there are no vaccines for many diseases and a lot of new vaccines are failures in trials.
COVID does mutate so vaccines may not be very effective against it. Natural immunity acquired from infection is still quite good though. Vaccines may work well in the lab, but in real life they may be less effective.
Earlier this week our main local vaccination centre which only got up and running last Friday appparently ran out of vaccines and had to suspend operations. It quickly got back up and running again. This may explain the poor number yesterday if replicated across the country?
My 84yo father-in-law emailed the GP who runs the local surgery yesterday asking for a status update. He received a phone call this morning and is now booked in on Friday morning. Interestingly not at the local vaccination centre but another one which we did not think he would be going to.
Also my 78yo father had yesterday booked into one of the mass vaccination sites quite a drive away on 1st February. He called up his local surgery and said it was a bit of a drive and they offered him a jab in the town he lives in 2 hours time.
Clearly despite telling people not to call up and ask, raising questions seems to miraculously get people their vaccinations sooner!
Scotland could join the EU - just in time to have to pay for their gold-plated abandonment standards for removing the North Sea infrastructure.
The trade-off was always something of a rational gamble, and it might not turn out to be a particularly successful one. Caution until second jabs are well out of the way is definitely sensible.
Meanwhile 7 members of the school's staff have now tested positive and the school has now closed.
https://twitter.com/_b_meyer/status/1351843023894753290
https://twitter.com/_b_meyer/status/1351843551588528129
https://twitter.com/_b_meyer/status/1351844161113255937
https://twitter.com/_b_meyer/status/1351844815378526208
I didn't quite make the third-off, mind.
In the summer restrictions will be eased, and then tightened again in the autumn when new strains threaten.
I don't foresee how we get out of this this cycle under this government. Most people don't seem to care right now.
[deleted - quotes messed up]
Permanent wfh does pall for me after a while.