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.
That's not the case.The Treasury has already stated (in 2013 IIRC) it will carry on fronting the entire UK national debt in the case of Scottish independence. Insofar as we know current SNP planning - and assuming it is the same as in 2014 - it's to take on a share of the debt through some appropriate instrument. Nobody seriously doubts that. But abandoning it is a well known precedent in earlier independence actions where the independence was contested/refused. So it's entirely in the interest of rUK to cooperate.
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.
If you are right, which seems a stretch to me, there will be a point where the bond markets wont lend any more of endless furlough.
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.
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.
As I've observed before, but is worth repeating after the last thread (!) and today, the striking difference on PB from 2013-2014 concerning Scottish independence is that it's often the non-Scots residents (so far as I can tell) who are picking up and controverting the arguments, threadbare as they are, of the Unionist/Imperialist faction.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
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 evidence we have so far regarding the viral mutations suggest quite the opposite - the vaccines give more protection than prior infection.
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'.
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.
It seems to be OK if you've some experience in the job/area of work. Straight out of education, not so much.
I presume Gordon Brittas will be telling us how he always called for border closures during this pandemic, when even a month ago his example of more restrictions was closing zoos.
Also now the media have all had their Christmas holidays abroad they are outraged the border wasn't closed sooner.
Lets also not forget that Sage said it wouldn't make much difference, because it was already well seeded.
Some of us on here said this was wrong from the get go...and that traditional summer vacation season was insanity.
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.
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.
I think "rebalancing" is the current preferred term for those who denied this would happen...
Since he says specifically that it was to do with the decision of the UK government to ban the sale of new Petrol and Diesel cars in 2030 I assume that is what you are referring to rather than any of your other obsessions.
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.
No, they didn't lie about the efficacy of vaccines. Published scientific papers etc. The issue with the Oxford vaccine etc.
It seems that some are trying to hear what wasn't said.
A 90%+ effective vaccine is awesome. When a sufficient mass of the population takes it, COVID will start to die away. That will be when the vast majority of the population have had the vaccine.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
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.
If you are right, which seems a stretch to me, there will be a point where the bond markets wont lend any more of endless furlough.
They aren't anyway. The Bank of England is buying a lot of the paper. The fact is that everybody in the West is doing it though, central banks are competing for how much currency they can print, so the effects are not yet pronounced maybe.
Can this last forever? who knows. Could a huge devaluation of the currencies of the west occur, making huge numbers of people much poorer very quickly?
The possibility has been mooted by at least one investment fund.
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?
To be clear, it's not SNP voters who should have the right to decide whether or not to withdraw their consent for the British state to rule them. It is the people of Scotland.
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.
Leaver hypothesis. Akin to happy British fish.
Except the fish (incl. edible molluscs, arthropods, etc.) are even happier nobody is catching them (or at least not so many folk).
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'.
Brexit Webinar. Product Specific Rules example. Fresh Tomatoes entirely different to Chopped Canned Tomatoes entirely different to Tomato Juice entirely different to Tomato Ketchup. Each one with a different product code and restrictions on what you can and can't do at each stage of production to count as Origin EU/UK...
So the secret service aren't going to be dragging him out screaming. Disappointed.
Was always going to be the way...among many other things he is a coward. See the other week where he ramps up the crowd about stopping the steal and he would march with them and then disappears off to watch it on tv.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
People snorted with derision on here when I suggested a summer opening for pubs yesterday.
Reading the news today. summer is looking a bit optimistic.
Bookmarked.
Well you said Easter, April 02, so lets bookmark that one too.
I reckon I will still be nearer the bull.
What's the bet? Pubs opening or opening completely free of restrictions?
Completely free of restrictions is...well.....how long is a piece of string. 2023? 2024?
It could be never. I can see certain aspects of hygiene and distancing becoming the norm. But we'll be boozing away in pubs before the summer, I expect.
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.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
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.
I see BF has polished up its rules this time!
"This market will be settled once both the projected winner is announced by the Associated Press and the losing candidate concedes. If the losing candidate does not concede, or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress."
So the secret service aren't going to be dragging him out screaming. Disappointed.
Was always going to be the way...among many other things he is a coward. See the other week where he ramps up the crowd about stopping the steal and he would march with them and then disappears off to watch it on tv.
I know, but I so wanted it. His heels digging two grooves in the grass as they drag him along before being bundled onto the street.
Brexit Webinar. Product Specific Rules example. Fresh Tomatoes entirely different to Chopped Canned Tomatoes entirely different to Tomato Juice entirely different to Tomato Ketchup. Each one with a different product code and restrictions on what you can and can't do at each stage of production to count as Origin EU/UK...
Does that mean we won't get the rubbish "grown in a Dutch greenhouse" tomatoes? Excellent news.
I hope government is funding our boffins to get on with follow on vaccine development now. Compared to all other interventions, it is remarkable cheap, so just do it. (Though current vaccines are likely still effective against the mutants.)
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?
To be clear, it's not SNP voters who should have the right to decide whether or not to withdraw their consent for the British state to rule them. It is the people of Scotland.
And not the people outside Scotland.
Consent is foundational to legitimate governance.
Well said.
Also very interesting that MarqueeMark aims to delegitimise Scottish voters as a whole for the perceived sins of a proportion of them (at least in his perception). That's a profoundly un-Unionist way of thinking, especially as quite a few people voted and will vote Yes despite not voting SNP, and even more want a referendum despite not voting either Yes or SNP. Note also the characteristic omission of the Scottish Greens HYUFD style to try and drive down the perceived legitimacy and make it even more "tiny" a "subset".
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.
Indeed! The final stage = real world... that's the point.
The PB Hysterions are getting worse, and there's probably no cure.
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.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Amd what has that to do with the original topic we were talking about? - which was
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
I hope government is funding our boffins to get on with follow on vaccine development now. Compared to all other interventions, it is remarkable cheap, so just do it. (Though current vaccines are likely still effective against the mutants.)
Well we have the new mega production centre in Oxfordshire that can make 100m doses of Adenovirus and mRNA type vaccines in 6 months. The government really needs to get Imperial to spin out their mRNA unit and buy up a golden stake in it to protect it from IP transfer overseas and give it long term funding.
Patel on manoeuvres. Nothing much Boris can do about it.
Priti Patel has always been semi-detached so I'd not read too much into Guido's over-excited reaction here. Six months ago she conspicuously did not support Dominic Cummings, for instance. It does not mean she will be sacked tomorrow, or that she is on manoeuvres.
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.
His death will be temporary. After 7 days lying in a golden casket he will arise and release the kraken. Watch out GOP establishment types when that happens.
I hope government is funding our boffins to get on with follow on vaccine development now. Compared to all other interventions, it is remarkable cheap, so just do it. (Though current vaccines are likely still effective against the mutants.)
Given the Pfizer vaccine was created in 2 days by a couple of scientists (using pre-existing work), you'd have to try pretty hard to stop them making new versions.
Funding mass testing of those new versions would be the issue
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.
If you are right, which seems a stretch to me, there will be a point where the bond markets wont lend any more of endless furlough.
They aren't anyway. The Bank of England is buying a lot of the paper. The fact is that everybody in the West is doing it though, central banks are competing for how much currency they can print, so the effects are not yet pronounced maybe.
Can this last forever? who knows. Could a huge devaluation of the currencies of the west occur, making huge numbers of people much poorer very quickly?
The possibility has been mooted by at least one investment fund.
GBP is already down around 20% against the euro since late 2015. Not sure whether that meets your definition of a huge devaluation or not.
Patel on manoeuvres. Nothing much Boris can do about it.
Priti Patel has always been semi-detached so I'd not read too much into Guido's over-excited reaction here. Six months ago she conspicuously did not support Dominic Cummings, for instance. It does not mean she will be sacked tomorrow, or that she is on manoeuvres.
Also it isn't new news. It has been well reported previously that she wanted the borders closed and was overruled.
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.
I see BF has polished up its rules this time!
"This market will be settled once both the projected winner is announced by the Associated Press and the losing candidate concedes. If the losing candidate does not concede, or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress."
Lessons learnt. Can ask no more really. I guess they will adjust their state winner rules to be consistent with that.
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?
To be clear, it's not SNP voters who should have the right to decide whether or not to withdraw their consent for the British state to rule them. It is the people of Scotland.
And not the people outside Scotland.
Consent is foundational to legitimate governance.
Well said.
Also very interesting that MarqueeMark aims to delegitimise Scottish voters as a whole for the perceived sins of a proportion of them (at least in his perception). That's a profoundly un-Unionist way of thinking, especially as quite a few people voted and will vote Yes despite not voting SNP, and even more want a referendum despite not voting either Yes or SNP. Note also the characteristic omission of the Scottish Greens HYUFD style to try and drive down the perceived legitimacy and make it even more "tiny" a "subset".
I'm so fucked off with this attitude from the headbangers that I'm genuinely considering joining the SNP out of solidarity. I'm not a "party" person, and I've obviously got no prospect of voting for them, and I'm not even sure I'd want to, but as a democrat I really feel like I need to make a point.
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.
Indeed! The final stage = real world... that's the point.
The PB Hysterions are getting worse, and there's probably no cure.
Patel on manoeuvres. Nothing much Boris can do about it.
Priti Patel has always been semi-detached so I'd not read too much into Guido's over-excited reaction here. Six months ago she conspicuously did not support Dominic Cummings, for instance. It does not mean she will be sacked tomorrow, or that she is on manoeuvres.
I'm at a loss as to what Collective Responsbility has to do with looking backwards and saying in a private meeting that we should probably have done something different
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.
I see BF has polished up its rules this time!
"This market will be settled once both the projected winner is announced by the Associated Press and the losing candidate concedes. If the losing candidate does not concede, or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress."
Three way election next time Democrats v Republican vs Patriots - the Dem/Rep concedes but the Patriot in 3rd place does not. AP to get bought out by Fox News between the election and the EC vote flipping their call.
Patel on manoeuvres. Nothing much Boris can do about it.
Priti Patel has always been semi-detached so I'd not read too much into Guido's over-excited reaction here. Six months ago she conspicuously did not support Dominic Cummings, for instance. It does not mean she will be sacked tomorrow, or that she is on manoeuvres.
Also it isn't new news. It has been well reported previously that she wanted the borders closed and was overruled.
Don't think her wantin the borders closed has anythin to do with the virus.
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.
I think "rebalancing" is the current preferred term for those who denied this would happen...
Since he says specifically that it was to do with the decision of the UK government to ban the sale of new Petrol and Diesel cars in 2030 I assume that is what you are referring to rather than any of your other obsessions.
Are they really going to call the new merged result of Chrysler and Peugeot, "Stellantis"?
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
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 evidence we have so far regarding the viral mutations suggest quite the opposite - the vaccines give more protection than prior infection.
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.
I see BF has polished up its rules this time!
"This market will be settled once both the projected winner is announced by the Associated Press and the losing candidate concedes. If the losing candidate does not concede, or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress."
Lessons learnt. Can ask no more really. I guess they will adjust their state winner rules to be consistent with that.
Losing candidate, singular?
A strong third party candidate, or perhaps even a weak one, could still potentially confuse settlement of this market, couldn't they?
I hope government is funding our boffins to get on with follow on vaccine development now. Compared to all other interventions, it is remarkable cheap, so just do it. (Though current vaccines are likely still effective against the mutants.)
Given the Pfizer vaccine was created in 2 days by a couple of scientists (using pre-existing work), you'd have to try pretty hard to stop them making new versions.
Funding mass testing of those new versions would be the issue
No doubt the large pharmas are doing so already - but university research labs will still need money, and it needs to be happening now. As events have demonstrated, we can't just rely on overseas supplies.
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.
No, they didn't lie about the efficacy of vaccines. Published scientific papers etc. The issue with the Oxford vaccine etc.
It seems that some are trying to hear what wasn't said.
A 90%+ effective vaccine is awesome. When a sufficient mass of the population takes it, COVID will start to die away. That will be when the vast majority of the population have had the vaccine.
That's a critical point - it will *start* to die away when the vast majority of the population have had the vaccine. Except in isolated pockets where the vast majority of a closed population has been vaccinated. By maintaining isolation, we can help develop those "closed populations" in larger and larger areas. But it requires *both* vaccination *and* isolation to get it under control.
Is the sweetspot for Diesel Estates still either 2016-17 when you get the £30 road-tax for some, or new with a hefty discount?
I didn't quite make the third-off, mind.
At that age you're starting to get into sticky injector territory or similar woes. Which is fine if you're down for replacing them and the price is right in the first place. I always do injectors, glow plugs and fuel filters on any old diesel I buy because if they're not giving trouble they soon will. A full set of Bosch injectors for my F34 was just shy of £1,200... but I got it v. cheap because it wouldn't start.
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.
Indeed! The final stage = real world... that's the point.
The PB Hysterions are getting worse, and there's probably no cure.
Patel on manoeuvres. Nothing much Boris can do about it.
Priti Patel has always been semi-detached so I'd not read too much into Guido's over-excited reaction here. Six months ago she conspicuously did not support Dominic Cummings, for instance. It does not mean she will be sacked tomorrow, or that she is on manoeuvres.
I'm at a loss as to what Collective Responsbility has to do with looking backwards and saying in a private meeting that we should probably have done something different
Isnt it this governments policy to never accept blame or that things could have been better or give the press an inch?
Brexit Webinar. Product Specific Rules example. Fresh Tomatoes entirely different to Chopped Canned Tomatoes entirely different to Tomato Juice entirely different to Tomato Ketchup. Each one with a different product code and restrictions on what you can and can't do at each stage of production to count as Origin EU/UK...
Does that mean we won't get the rubbish "grown in a Dutch greenhouse" tomatoes? Excellent news.
How do you think Thanet Earth grow their Tomatoes?
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
In theory, yes 20 people at 60% is better than 10 at 90%. In practice, it depends on whether the 20 people then go on to behave as if they were 90% protected. Which is why Nudge Unit Guy was trying to ring the alarm yesterday.
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.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Yes, until day 21 it was explicitly designed to understand that.
What do you think the data from before day 21 is for?
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.
Indeed! The final stage = real world... that's the point.
The PB Hysterions are getting worse, and there's probably no cure.
But is there a vaccine?
Difficult to say. Some appear to have developed resistance even to a hefty dose of facts.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
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.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Yes, until day 21 it was explicitly designed to understand that.
What do you think the data from before day 21 is for?
I wouldn't say it was explicitly designed to look at single dose efficacy, because it wasn't. Even if they did collect that data.
The numbers in the trial are relatively small, and the numbers of elderly considerably smaller. And the period we're really interested in is after 21 days...
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
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.
Indeed! The final stage = real world... that's the point.
The PB Hysterions are getting worse, and there's probably no cure.
But is there a vaccine?
Difficult to say. Some appear to have developed resistance even to a hefty dose of facts.
Bleach plus hot broth will cure them.
If not, Chlorine pentafluoride* will get rid of COVID. 100% guaranteed. Efficacy time to 100% measured in milliseconds.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
Ii I understand correctly the Israel data is looking at antibodies, not infections in those vaccinated.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
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.
Has a trial been conducted, by design, to understand efficacy after one dose?
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
Yes, until day 21 it was explicitly designed to understand that.
What do you think the data from before day 21 is for?
I wouldn't say it was explicitly designed to look at single dose efficacy, because it wasn't. Even if they did collect that data.
The numbers in the trial are relatively small, and the numbers of elderly considerably smaller. And the period we're really interested in is after 21 days...
Yes, I agree with this. There's no doubt that our policy is a big gamble, but when you consider the alternative it's one worth taking. This could Dave tens of thousands of lives and bring us out of this most severe level of lockdown by the middle of March. We know how the road not taken goes as well, the method we've chosen will almost certainly be better than that.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
In theory, yes 20 people at 60% is better than 10 at 90%. In practice, it depends on whether the 20 people then go on to behave as if they were 90% protected. Which is why Nudge Unit Guy was trying to ring the alarm yesterday.
It is not actually this close.
The 20 people have 60% protection against catching the disease - they have far far stronger protection against hospitalisation, indeed very similar protection to the 10 people at 90% protection against catching the disease.
The nudge stuff is important in stopping the spread to others, but in terms of managing hospital capacity doing as many of the vulnerable as we can with single doses instead of 2 jabs is clearly better.
Patel on manoeuvres. Nothing much Boris can do about it.
I think she is his biggest near term threat.
If Patel is Johnson's biggest near term threat then the Tory selectorate are as sane as Trump
Not betting at the moment, but I note that Nadhim Zahawi is available at 100-1 for next Tory leader. Trading bet?
Hmm. Nadhim Zahawi at 100/1 as a trading bet? It looks like a bet on whether Zahawi's so far good vaccination war is rewarded with a Cabinet post rather than promotion to a (junior) Minister of State role. That might bring him in to, say, 33/1. It is not that tempting given the uncertain time scale.
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.
I see BF has polished up its rules this time!
"This market will be settled once both the projected winner is announced by the Associated Press and the losing candidate concedes. If the losing candidate does not concede, or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress."
Lessons learnt. Can ask no more really. I guess they will adjust their state winner rules to be consistent with that.
Losing candidate, singular?
A strong third party candidate, or perhaps even a weak one, could still potentially confuse settlement of this market, couldn't they?
Yes, I guess so. One imagines a 3 way battle, Dem v Rep v Patriot Party. It's close between Harris for the Dems and whoever the GOP candidate is. But Harris has the edge in both PV and EC and the GOP concedes. The Patriots take Wyoming, though, and get a decent slug of national PV to go along with those 3 ECVs. Their standard bearer, Donald J Trump, for it is he, refuses to concede. Claims the biggest electoral fraud ever, even bigger than last time, has stolen it from him. The world laughs, but Betair under their new rules are in a bind. Trump's a losing candidate and he has NOT conceded. Do they settle or do they keep trading? Either way, what will be the PB reaction?
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?
To be clear, it's not SNP voters who should have the right to decide whether or not to withdraw their consent for the British state to rule them. It is the people of Scotland.
And not the people outside Scotland.
Consent is foundational to legitimate governance.
Well said.
Also very interesting that MarqueeMark aims to delegitimise Scottish voters as a whole for the perceived sins of a proportion of them (at least in his perception). That's a profoundly un-Unionist way of thinking, especially as quite a few people voted and will vote Yes despite not voting SNP, and even more want a referendum despite not voting either Yes or SNP. Note also the characteristic omission of the Scottish Greens HYUFD style to try and drive down the perceived legitimacy and make it even more "tiny" a "subset".
I'm so fucked off with this attitude from the headbangers that I'm genuinely considering joining the SNP out of solidarity. I'm not a "party" person, and I've obviously got no prospect of voting for them, and I'm not even sure I'd want to, but as a democrat I really feel like I need to make a point.
I'm also wondering whether threatening military intervention of any kind should be banned on PB. I'm almost tempted to buy the main culprits this if it would only keep them quiet pushing it along the carpet. There is a serious discussion to be had edit: for instance about when (in real life) a Tory SoS for NI would actually call a border poll and it got derailed, or crawled over by tanks, last night.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
No one wants to peddle lies or half truths about this. I’m happy for you to kick me where I have got it wrong.
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
But what do you mean by 33% and at what time point are you looking at (3 days, 14 days, 21 days). without actual data and a graph your 33% is meaningless and positively dangerous.
I've seen statements. Not an actual set of data.
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
People snorted with derision on here when I suggested a summer opening for pubs yesterday.
Reading the news today. summer is looking a bit optimistic.
Bookmarked.
Well you said Easter, April 02, so lets bookmark that one too.
I reckon I will still be nearer the bull.
Go ahead and bookmark it. Some/most pubs open by Easter I reckon.
What does 'some/most' mean and what does 'open' mean? And where?
Well open means, erm, open.
Contrarian's OP yesterday said 21 June before any open.
I'm saying April 2.
Open as in
1) selling beer for takeaway 2) COVID protected beer garden stuff 3) fully open, with the band playing etc
Dominos being played in 3, but otherwise agree.
For most of England (given tiered stuff and devolution)
Less than scenario 1 - 12/1 Scenario 1 - 3/1 Closer to Scenario 2 than 1 or 3 - 1/2 Scenario 3 - 8/1
Think I'd swap your first and last, TBH. I don't think that, as far as this part of England is concerned there's much chance of being able to walk down to the local and sit and chat before midsummer. (June 24th)
Although, again TBH I'm as interested in being able to walk down to the local cricket club's ground and sit outside with a beer.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
Ii I understand correctly the Israel data is looking at antibodies, not infections in those vaccinated.
So we are comparing elephants with small rodents and then trying to continue an argument.
Of course. It was coming from the Scottish Government and pertained to Scotland and has often been different from rUK. People needed to know where it was coming from. And it's within the devolved areas. What do they expect??
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
Ii I understand correctly the Israel data is looking at antibodies, not infections in those vaccinated.
So we are comparing elephants with small rodents and then trying to continue an argument.
But small rodents close up will appear big and elephants look small when far away....
{can't be bothered to insert obvious youtube video here}
Patel on manoeuvres. Nothing much Boris can do about it.
Priti Patel has always been semi-detached so I'd not read too much into Guido's over-excited reaction here. Six months ago she conspicuously did not support Dominic Cummings, for instance. It does not mean she will be sacked tomorrow, or that she is on manoeuvres.
We could start speaking Patel's English and lose at least five consonants
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.
I see BF has polished up its rules this time!
"This market will be settled once both the projected winner is announced by the Associated Press and the losing candidate concedes. If the losing candidate does not concede, or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress."
Lessons learnt. Can ask no more really. I guess they will adjust their state winner rules to be consistent with that.
Losing candidate, singular?
A strong third party candidate, or perhaps even a weak one, could still potentially confuse settlement of this market, couldn't they?
Yes, I guess so. One imagines a 3 way battle, Dem v Rep v Patriot Party. It's close between Harris for the Dems and whoever the GOP candidate is. But Harris has the edge in both PV and EC and the GOP concedes. The Patriots take Wyoming, though, and get a decent slug of national PV to go along with those 3 ECVs. Their standard bearer, Donald J Trump, for it is he, refuses to concede. Claims the biggest electoral fraud ever, even bigger than last time, has stolen it from him. The world laughs, but Betair under their new rules are in a bind. Trump's a losing candidate and he has NOT conceded. Do they settle or do they keep trading? Either way, what will be the PB reaction?
In that scenario surely DJT will have confirmed himself as the BIGGEST LOSER in the election and has won the right to decide whether the loser concedes or not? PB will moan.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
People snorted with derision on here when I suggested a summer opening for pubs yesterday.
Reading the news today. summer is looking a bit optimistic.
Bookmarked.
Well you said Easter, April 02, so lets bookmark that one too.
I reckon I will still be nearer the bull.
Go ahead and bookmark it. Some/most pubs open by Easter I reckon.
What does 'some/most' mean and what does 'open' mean? And where?
Well open means, erm, open.
Contrarian's OP yesterday said 21 June before any open.
I'm saying April 2.
Did he say 21 June or summer?
Meteorologically (which is what matters most for many pubs) summer begins 1 June.
If pubs were shut until 21 June I would argue that is 3 weeks of summer weather trade lost.
Well he said the start of summer, which I took to mean 21 June, and he didn't correct me.
Plenty of summery weather to be had in May in a good year too – hoping we get a long, warm 'summer' this year that runs May thru September!
Summer starts according to the stars on 21 June and according to the weather on 1 June.
I used to say Summer was 21 June until I realised the Met Office say 1 June - and why they do so.
I have great respect for astronomy and astrophysics but on this one I think the weather and the Met Office should be deferred to. For pubs the summer really should include all of June.
End of May bank holiday can be very much sunny weather. Then again it is also typically the week summer officially begins too, meteorologically.
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.
Whether it was right or wrong - my hunch is right - it does demonstrate the gravity of the projection that we have chosen to depart from recommended best practice on a medical matter. And I'm hoping the driver was that - panic - rather than anything to do with standing out in a perceived competition with other countries.
Given what you are saying can you provide a link to the actual data rather than just saying things.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Sorry, don't quite follow. What am I saying that needs a link?
The data coming out of Israel
Ii I understand correctly the Israel data is looking at antibodies, not infections in those vaccinated.
So we are comparing elephants with small rodents and then trying to continue an argument.
But small rodents close up will appear big and elephants look small when far away....
{can't be bothered to insert obvious youtube video here}
Also depends what the mammals are doing. Famously different scores for being dropped down wells or equivalent distance, being fed LSD in proportion to their weights, efficiency of digestion of hay, etc.
Comments
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1351849965925105666
Also now the media have all had their Christmas holidays abroad they are outraged the border wasn't closed sooner.
Lets also not forget that Sage said it wouldn't make much difference, because it was already well seeded.
Some of us on here said this was wrong from the get go...and that traditional summer vacation season was insanity.
It seems that some are trying to hear what wasn't said.
A 90%+ effective vaccine is awesome. When a sufficient mass of the population takes it, COVID will start to die away. That will be when the vast majority of the population have had the vaccine.
And remember my other viewpoint better to have 20 people with 60% protection rather than 10 people 90% protected.
There are zero great options here, just ones that are slightly better than others - and everyone has their pet solution that they are trying to push for their own reasons / incentives.
Can this last forever? who knows. Could a huge devaluation of the currencies of the west occur, making huge numbers of people much poorer very quickly?
The possibility has been mooted by at least one investment fund.
And not the people outside Scotland.
Consent is foundational to legitimate governance.
There is an expression: as happy as a clam.
Due to the 456K second doses that have been given out, the UK currently has the third highest level of completed vaccinations in the world.
And sidelines? Who are you, Chris Whitty?
"This market will be settled once both the projected winner is announced by the Associated Press and the losing candidate concedes. If the losing candidate does not concede, or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress."
(Though current vaccines are likely still effective against the mutants.)
https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1351840343134793729
Also very interesting that MarqueeMark aims to delegitimise Scottish voters as a whole for the perceived sins of a proportion of them (at least in his perception). That's a profoundly un-Unionist way of thinking, especially as quite a few people voted and will vote Yes despite not voting SNP, and even more want a referendum despite not voting either Yes or SNP. Note also the characteristic omission of the Scottish Greens HYUFD style to try and drive down the perceived legitimacy and make it even more "tiny" a "subset".
The PB Hysterions are getting worse, and there's probably no cure.
People catching covid on the day / day before their first vaccination and coming down ill with it a few days later.
None of that has anything to do with the time frame between first and second injections and everything to do with being unlucky enough to catching Covid on approximately the same day their had their first injection.
Funding mass testing of those new versions would be the issue
I'm not a "party" person, and I've obviously got no prospect of voting for them, and I'm not even sure I'd want to, but as a democrat I really feel like I need to make a point.
AP to get bought out by Fox News between the election and the EC vote flipping their call.
Bring on Consignia...
However, if she had been listened to, thousands of lives could have been saved.
Time to dust off the old #Priti4Leader line.
Contrarian's OP yesterday said 21 June before any open.
I'm saying April 2.
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1351840898057986048?s=20
https://twitter.com/gribbs43/status/1351847541869080578?s=20
A strong third party candidate, or perhaps even a weak one, could still potentially confuse settlement of this market, couldn't they?
As events have demonstrated, we can't just rely on overseas supplies.
1) selling beer for takeaway
2) COVID protected beer garden stuff
3) fully open, with the band playing etc
Equally its a trade off between keeping people safe and keeping the economy going.
What do you think the data from before day 21 is for?
Some appear to have developed resistance even to a hefty dose of facts.
Meteorologically (which is what matters most for many pubs) summer begins 1 June.
If pubs were shut until 21 June I would argue that is 3 weeks of summer weather trade lost.
Less than scenario 1 - 12/1
Scenario 1 - 3/1
Closer to Scenario 2 than 1 or 3 - 1/2
Scenario 3 - 8/1
The numbers in the trial are relatively small, and the numbers of elderly considerably smaller.
And the period we're really interested in is after 21 days...
But the data out of Israel suggests maybe as low as 33% from one jab of Pfizer?
If not, Chlorine pentafluoride* will get rid of COVID. 100% guaranteed. Efficacy time to 100% measured in milliseconds.
*Chlorine trifluoride is for lightweights.
The 20 people have 60% protection against catching the disease - they have far far stronger protection against hospitalisation, indeed very similar protection to the 10 people at 90% protection against catching the disease.
The nudge stuff is important in stopping the spread to others, but in terms of managing hospital capacity doing as many of the vulnerable as we can with single doses instead of 2 jabs is clearly better.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/c/5020273853
There are a number of newspaper reports.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/thousands-of-israelis-tested-positive-for-coronavirus-after-first-vaccine-shot-1.9462478
As you say, 33% - who (age profile), when (what day), what (as in what was being measured) - without that information the number is meaningless.
Plenty of summery weather to be had in May in a good year too – hoping we get a long, warm 'summer' this year that runs May thru September!
Although, again TBH I'm as interested in being able to walk down to the local cricket club's ground and sit outside with a beer.
{can't be bothered to insert obvious youtube video here}
All of which does more harm than good when people are say looking for anything they can use to push their anti-vax agenda.
I used to say Summer was 21 June until I realised the Met Office say 1 June - and why they do so.
I have great respect for astronomy and astrophysics but on this one I think the weather and the Met Office should be deferred to. For pubs the summer really should include all of June.
End of May bank holiday can be very much sunny weather. Then again it is also typically the week summer officially begins too, meteorologically.