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.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
Except your "AFAIA" is wrong.
No trial has been designed to test single dose efficiency on an ongoing basis - but a trial was designed to test single dose efficacy from day 0 to day 21.
This was symptomatic on day 4, symptomatic obviously comes days after infection. That is entirely within the definition of what was tested for and determined. Efficacy was demonstrated between days 10 and 21 (but after 21 is unknown) - but no efficacy for day 4. This is entirely and explicitly within the realms of what was tested for.
Have a look at this image and look up at day 4 and see its results. Day 4 is within this chart and what was tested for - what were the results at day 4? Is day 4 the same or different to results day 10-21?
Day 22 onwards there's no data for. There is data for day 4.
Thanks I still don't think the trial was designed to test efficacy after a single dose although as you say it was certainly observed. The press release doesn't mention anything other than divergence after Day 12.
But frankly I can't even remember why it matters here so I will accept that you are all wrong and I, as ever, am right.
Strictly speaking the trial wasn’t designed to test anything more than the primary and secondary endpoints.
But there’s a lot more valid data that can be gleaned from the trial.
But one jab doesn’t create immunity in that person. So where does the herd immunity come from?
After vaccination Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, after vaccination old, frail or vulnerable are still going to get very ill and die. They still can’t hug their family. Care homes will still be in difficult place.
That’s not herd immunity back to normal is it?
Instead of word immunity use protection, instead of back to normal say better place?
The trial groups are all in contact with the outside (unvaccinated) world. Once everyone is vaccinated, well everyone has protection - and the people they can catch it from have protection so are less likely to transmit to people that themselves have protection. It's the cumulative effect of individual protection that leads to immunity of the population.
Okay. That’s how all vaccines work - There’s no vaccine that gives 100% immunity? But the population overall is in better place, and we call it herd immunity?
Is still think the word immunity is causing an expectation problem. To say to someone you have 80% immunity is saying 80% protection but not immune. Isn’t it?
I don't think vaccines work quite like that. AIUI, with most vaccines, as an individual you are either almost 100% immune, or you are 0% immune. The 80% figure is because 8 out of 10 people get the 100% immunity, whilst the other 2 out of ten get 0%.
On a second reading it seems even more unhinged. A useful reminder after the recent GWB discussions that the current set of of pricks being really ghastly is not a case for a retrospective pardon for their predecessors.
I kept scrolling down because I thought surely there is a paragraph missing, where it says of course the argument in the previous paragraph (that Johnson should just refuse to engage with the issue) is complete nonsense. But no. He really is saying that Johnson should simply hope the issue goes away. Insane. Also the whole "losing Scotland" thing isn't a good look if you don't want to sound like a colonialist. And surely most people say "Catalan" not "Catalonian". Weird piece of writing from someone who is paid to edit newspapers for a living.
Osborne has always been ruthless. As someone who did plenty to unleash English nationalism himself - it's a bit rich to hear him complaining now about it.
He obviously thinks there is no point trying to change Scottish minds at the moment, the best bet is to ignore them and hope something comes up. It might work - but it doesn't seem likely to lead to a happier union or a stronger democracy.
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.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
But there are charts that show efficacy and those charts (for at least the first 21 days and given the time required for a vaccine to work the next 5 days to day 26/28 days) relate to the first injection only.
Your entire argument relates to day 21/28 onwards after vaccination when we were talking about people catching Covid on Day -3 through to 0.
It really didn't help at all
Not at all. As I said, this relates to the situation of having had Covid pre-first jab.
We have plenty of data about first dose efficacy. But that was picked up "along the way". There was no trial specifically designed to understand this.
Does it matter? Who knows. Probably not. The premise of vaccinating more people rather than spend vaccine on the already vaccinated is very sound and understandable. Especially with more transmissable variants.
These guys don't know. And they aren't sniping from the sidelines, they are central to the effort.
Further, David Spiegelhalter thinks there should be an embedded randomised control trial to determine the difference between three weeks and 12 weeks. There is currently none planned (as of 10 days ago).
They also talk about viral escape, for which @FrancisUrquhart should probably tune out.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
More tests = more volunteers required => longer time before results are available and vaccinations can begin
Doesn't require anything more than picking a random number of those being vaccinated to get the double dose on the normal schedule - and compare results with the delayed booster cohort.
Introducing an extra cohort would kill the statistical power in the main trial - would need to massively increase the number of subjects overall
The QAnon theory I saw was that 'they' would wait until Kamala Harris is officially Vice President and then assassinate Biden and blame it on a Trump supporter.
I'm not sure it's worth worrying about that kind of stuff, there will be daily variation during the next two weeks while things are ramping up. As long as the trend is upwards then I think it's fine.
I'm not sure it's worth worrying about that kind of stuff, there will be daily variation during the next two weeks while things are ramping up. As long as the trend is upwards then I think it's fine.
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.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
Except your "AFAIA" is wrong.
No trial has been designed to test single dose efficiency on an ongoing basis - but a trial was designed to test single dose efficacy from day 0 to day 21.
This was symptomatic on day 4, symptomatic obviously comes days after infection. That is entirely within the definition of what was tested for and determined. Efficacy was demonstrated between days 10 and 21 (but after 21 is unknown) - but no efficacy for day 4. This is entirely and explicitly within the realms of what was tested for.
oh thank you.
Could you provide the link pls.
The graph I posted above in this thread is directly from publication of the results of the Pfzier trial.
"Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
They also stated: "The study was not designed to assess the efficacy of a single-dose regimen. Nevertheless, in the interval between the first and second doses, the observed vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 52%..."
Can you tell me the confidence interval for the '52% effectiveness' ? Or, rather more importantly, what the observed effectiveness was in those aged over 70 ?
There is a rather academic, but still quite fun, book about how members of cults mentally deal with situations where end of the world doesn't happen as forecast, called When Prophecy Fails.
Some will rationalize, others will become disillusioned and angry, some will simply allow themselves to fade away from the cult, and will almost pretend to themselves that they were never members, and always doubted the prophecies.
Similar things, I suspect, will happen with QAnon believers.
I'm not sure it's worth worrying about that kind of stuff, there will be daily variation during the next two weeks while things are ramping up. As long as the trend is upwards then I think it's fine.
We want to be hitting 500k/ day this week.
Many surgeries round here have had a big delivery of the AZ vaccine today, if that is repeated nationwide then Friday could get near 500K
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.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
Except your "AFAIA" is wrong.
No trial has been designed to test single dose efficiency on an ongoing basis - but a trial was designed to test single dose efficacy from day 0 to day 21.
This was symptomatic on day 4, symptomatic obviously comes days after infection. That is entirely within the definition of what was tested for and determined. Efficacy was demonstrated between days 10 and 21 (but after 21 is unknown) - but no efficacy for day 4. This is entirely and explicitly within the realms of what was tested for.
oh thank you.
Could you provide the link pls.
The graph I posted above in this thread is directly from publication of the results of the Pfzier trial.
"Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
They also stated: "The study was not designed to assess the efficacy of a single-dose regimen. Nevertheless, in the interval between the first and second doses, the observed vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 52%..."
Can you tell me the confidence interval for the '52% effectiveness' ? Or, rather more importantly, what the observed effectiveness was in those aged over 70 ?
It says 95% CI
?
It says the 95% CI was 29.5 to 68.4 (percent, presumably).
He is wittering more than normal and that is saying something.
"We're leaving the White House for the last time after four wonderful years of poison and pillage, and we're very sorry but in fact don't give a shit that we leave America in a very, very much worse state than when we came here four years ago."
Now Trump has gone what are all the late night talks show in the US going to joke about? The writers might actually have to do some work, rather than rehash Orange Man bad every night.
We shall never hear such a speech again. Hopefully.
The big question over the next year or two is whether the US can, by combination of revelation from the investigation of the Capitol riot, and the new administration’s bipartisan approach, consign the Trump era to the naughty step of history.
Sorry what's 'bipartisan' about Biden's approach?
Well he doesn't re-tweet "The only good Republican is a dead Republican", for a start.
Then again, he didn't dub half his electorate 'deplorables'
Ah healing Hillary, bet we're going to see plenty of her now
He's gone, oh my, oh my. You better learn how to face it.
On a second reading it seems even more unhinged. A useful reminder after the recent GWB discussions that the current set of of pricks being really ghastly is not a case for a retrospective pardon for their predecessors.
I kept scrolling down because I thought surely there is a paragraph missing, where it says of course the argument in the previous paragraph (that Johnson should just refuse to engage with the issue) is complete nonsense. But no. He really is saying that Johnson should simply hope the issue goes away. Insane. Also the whole "losing Scotland" thing isn't a good look if you don't want to sound like a colonialist. And surely most people say "Catalan" not "Catalonian". Weird piece of writing from someone who is paid to edit newspapers for a living.
Osborne has always been ruthless. As someone who did plenty to unleash English nationalism himself - it's a bit rich to hear him complaining now about it.
He obviously thinks there is no point trying to change Scottish minds at the moment, the best bet is to ignore them and hope something comes up. It might work - but it doesn't seem likely to lead to a happier union or a stronger democracy.
The only thing likely to go up is the 83% of Scots who are more likely to vote for independence under the leadership of Mr Johnson.
I'm not sure it's worth worrying about that kind of stuff, there will be daily variation during the next two weeks while things are ramping up. As long as the trend is upwards then I think it's fine.
We want to be hitting 500k/ day this week.
Many surgeries round here have had a big delivery of the AZ vaccine today, if that is repeated nationwide then Friday could get near 500K
I inquired after my group 1 neighbour. Surgery said they'd be contacting her but were awaiting new supplies.
ENGLAND ONLY Jabs (vs previous day) total 301,362 (+76%), first 298,373 (+79%) second 2,989 (-20%) second highest day to date.
Much better! Can anyone crunch the numbers and forecast the UK return?
PERSONAL CIRCS/VACCINATION UPDATE: aged housebound aunt just received phone call to say an agency was delivering in-house vaccinations and she is on the list to receive one. No timings as yet.
Kind of worrying that a third of respondents don't think she should resign if she's committed what amounts to the crime of perjury, although we are talking Wings over Scotland here.
For the record, I will be very, very surprised if she has. While her husband's dealings look distinctly dodgy, Salmond is behaving more and more like his mate Trump right now and we all know how much truth was found there.
That's unfair. You need to realise that Mr Trump was ihnerited by AS from the Labour-LD admin and FM in Holyrood and their juniors in Abdnshire on the pretext of jobs - and although Mr Salmond tried to get off well with him, the relationship soon went very sour very quickly when Mr T realsied he couldn't bully Mr S like he did the previous lot. The transcripts of conversations between the two were most revealing of Mr T's mentality, and gave the more alert Scots an early insight into the Trump presidency which was more than fulfilled.
Shame they never got on to the topic of pussy-grabbing - a missed bridge-building opportunity.
ENGLAND ONLY Jabs (vs previous day) total 301,362 (+76%), first 298,373 (+79%) second 2,989 (-20%) second highest day to date.
And the pearl clutchers can relax (a bit).
Absolutely ridiculous term to use for those that are concerned about the rate. You might be relaxed with undershooting, forgive me if I'm not.
Apols if you've taken it personally. You are normally level headed, but obsessing over daily returns is only going to cause stress in something as complex as this roll-out. There are simply too may factors (overall supply of vaccine, allocation, getting patients lined up, phasing moving to the next patient groups, making sure people aren't left behind - already the press is leaping on stories of 'my 95 year odl grandad hasn't been jabbed, but they are doing the over 70's in the next area').
Boris just made an obvious observation that of course fish sales across Europe have been hard hit as restaurants and pubs across Europe are currently closed
I had not thought that one, but it is a fair comment
But people are still eating so the fact that restaurants and pubs are closed should have no impact on demand
That rather depends what they are eating. I used to have a regular restaurant meal at an upmarket pub with some mates on a Saturday night. Decent quality food - maybe a slow cooked lamb breast, or roast duck. I can cook pretty well, but haven't always got the energy to bother. On quite a few Saturday nights at the moment I'm probably on frozen pizzas or beans on toast.
I'd imagine that higher value fish is probably particularly badly effected by this - it something with which many people can't be bothered at home, but which often features on restaurant menus. I also don't know how many chip shops are currently shut - my decent local one has closed during this lockdown.
But all this only goes to show that what trade is left is all the more important to the fisherfolk.
Kind of worrying that a third of respondents don't think she should resign if she's committed what amounts to the crime of perjury, although we are talking Wings over Scotland here.
For the record, I will be very, very surprised if she has. While her husband's dealings look distinctly dodgy, Salmond is behaving more and more like his mate Trump right now and we all know how much truth was found there.
That's unfair. You need to realise that Mr Trump was ihnerited by AS from the Labour-LD admin and FM in Holyrood and their juniors in Abdnshire on the pretext of jobs - and although Mr Salmond tried to get off well with him, the relationship soon went very sour very quickly when Mr T realsied he couldn't bully Mr S like he did the previous lot. The transcripts of conversations between the two were most revealing of Mr T's mentality, and gave the more alert Scots an early insight into the Trump presidency which was more than fulfilled.
My recollection is that Trump fell out with Salmond when he discovered that offshore wind turbines were going to spoil the view from his new Aberdeenshire golf course and ScotGov was disinclined to do anything about it. Hitherto they were best buddies which isn't too surprising given their rather similar personality traits.
That's correct about the wind turbines - though they were a long way away.
Edit: It was Mr T's behaviour when he realised that Mr S wasn't going to bend over that really was revealing. And at that time he was merely a businessman with bad taste in bathroom fittings.
Yep. The Capo discovered his influence had limits. The affront probably helped to propel him into the White House. If only Eck had said yes...
And yet a second course has been approved. Despite the acknowledgement that the first one caused environmental damage.
By the local council, I think? Approval of No. 2, I mean.
Aberdeenshire is a Tory-LD alliance with some "independents" thrown in.
There is a rather academic, but still quite fun, book about how members of cults mentally deal with situations where end of the world doesn't happen as forecast, called When Prophecy Fails.
Some will rationalize, others will become disillusioned and angry, some will simply allow themselves to fade away from the cult, and will almost pretend to themselves that they were never members, and always doubted the prophecies.
Similar things, I suspect, will happen with QAnon believers.
I think today will end up being labelled the Second Great Disappointment for the true believers.
To be honest, give them the jab, because they are the sort of c***s who think normal lockdown rules don't apply to them anyway and are probably a major vector of transmission.
ENGLAND ONLY Jabs (vs previous day) total 301,362 (+76%), first 298,373 (+79%) second 2,989 (-20%) second highest day to date.
And the pearl clutchers can relax (a bit).
Absolutely ridiculous term to use for those that are concerned about the rate. You might be relaxed with undershooting, forgive me if I'm not.
Apols if you've taken it personally. You are normally level headed, but obsessing over daily returns is only going to cause stress in something as complex as this roll-out. There are simply too may factors (overall supply of vaccine, allocation, getting patients lined up, phasing moving to the next patient groups, making sure people aren't left behind - already the press is leaping on stories of 'my 95 year odl grandad hasn't been jabbed, but they are doing the over 70's in the next area').
Reporting delays are another variable. For all we know, weekend vaccination rates could be as high as the rest of the week, but reports might not make it into the system until later. After all, it's the actual vaccinations rather than the accounting that has to be the priority.
As with cases, the 7 day averages will be more enlightening and slightly less stress-inducing.
I would love to think he has but I fear he is not going to go away
The world would be a better place if he just went away permanently
Your homework for today is to have a think about the damage you can do by voting for dishonest populist politicians.
I could make a caustic comment but today is a day for healing divisions
Doing your homework tomorrow is OK with me
You never learn do you.
But then what is the point of a lib dem
To try and keep the rest of them honest.
Aren't the LibDems the political equivalent of an appendix ?
They have lost all their original function through evolution.
Not really. ISTR the appendix has the function of containing a dose of bacterial culture to flavour the bulk of the shite in the large bowel. Which might or might not be a metaphor for their coalitions in Holyrood and then Westminster. I couldn't possibly comment.
ENGLAND ONLY Jabs (vs previous day) total 301,362 (+76%), first 298,373 (+79%) second 2,989 (-20%) second highest day to date.
And the pearl clutchers can relax (a bit).
Absolutely ridiculous term to use for those that are concerned about the rate. You might be relaxed with undershooting, forgive me if I'm not.
Apols if you've taken it personally. You are normally level headed, but obsessing over daily returns is only going to cause stress in something as complex as this roll-out. There are simply too may factors (overall supply of vaccine, allocation, getting patients lined up, phasing moving to the next patient groups, making sure people aren't left behind - already the press is leaping on stories of 'my 95 year odl grandad hasn't been jabbed, but they are doing the over 70's in the next area').
I completely agree with you about such anecdotes – we see as much and worse on here. But the daily numbers do matter. I might try to pull together a spreadsheet to show how the rate changes, it would probably be better than daily commentary, I will give you that.
To be honest, give them the jab, because they are the sort of c***s who think normal lockdown rules don't apply to them anyway and are probably a major vector of transmission.
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.
Gah! This discussion arose because, apropos of @RochdalePioneers telling us about the incidence of infection post first jab, you said:
"The problem with all these stories is that because we understand how these things work we read the story one way."
Which I took to mean: well we know that there can be pre-existing rates of infection when the first jab is administered but the first jab does actually give high rates of immunity.
My point was and is we don't understand how these things work because as far as I'm aware, no trial has been designed and conducted specifically to determine first jab efficacy. Of course there have been data which suggests an answer but no trial AFAIA has been conducted to determine by trial.
But there are charts that show efficacy and those charts (for at least the first 21 days and given the time required for a vaccine to work the next 5 days to day 26/28 days) relate to the first injection only.
Your entire argument relates to day 21/28 onwards after vaccination when we were talking about people catching Covid on Day -3 through to 0.
It really didn't help at all
Not at all. As I said, this relates to the situation of having had Covid pre-first jab.
We have plenty of data about first dose efficacy. But that was picked up "along the way". There was no trial specifically designed to understand this.
Does it matter? Who knows. Probably not. The premise of vaccinating more people rather than spend vaccine on the already vaccinated is very sound and understandable. Especially with more transmissable variants.
These guys don't know. And they aren't sniping from the sidelines, they are central to the effort.
Further, David Spiegelhalter thinks there should be an embedded randomised control trial to determine the difference between three weeks and 12 weeks. There is currently none planned (as of 10 days ago).
They also talk about viral escape, for which @FrancisUrquhart should probably tune out.
Bizarre that they didn't think it worthwhile to conduct a randomised trial as part of the process. They should have decided that as soon as they decided to go with the delayed booster.
More tests = more volunteers required => longer time before results are available and vaccinations can begin
Doesn't require anything more than picking a random number of those being vaccinated to get the double dose on the normal schedule - and compare results with the delayed booster cohort.
Introducing an extra cohort would kill the statistical power in the main trial - would need to massively increase the number of subjects overall
We're vaccinating 300k a day. That a pretty big pool to fish in.
To be honest, give them the jab, because they are the sort of c***s who think normal lockdown rules don't apply to them anyway and are probably a major vector of transmission.
Bill them....£1000.
Well, they've broken lockdown to get it. AIUI the max fine for that is ten grand.
That seems proportionate in this case. Maybe sting them for five grand in court costs too.
There’s an old poker adage that says, “if you look around the table and can’t figure out who the fish (that is, sucker) is, then you’re probably the fish.”
In a very different realm of gambling, I had a recent experience evoking that maxim.
Just after the Dec. 14 Electoral College vote, an old friend and poker buddy called me. He knew a fellow high-stakes player looking to bet $100,000, with 20:1 odds, that Trump would be sworn in for a second term on Jan. 21.
That meant he needed someone willing to risk $2 million to win $100,000. The funds would be held in escrow for one month at a law firm upon which both parties agreed.
It felt like free money to me.
I’m a former political scientist with a background in campaigns and elections, and given all the evidence-free Trump legal filings, I saw no plausible scenario under which the outcome would change. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations it was a 60 percent annualized return with infinitesimal risk. And where else can you get that, with interest rates approaching zero and savings accounts offering less than 1 percent?
So I started rounding up the dough, using my own savings as seed money.
I had thousands of former donors, some of whom remain friends, from my days as a state senator and congressional wannabe. So I had a decent list of contacts to ask.
“Hey man,” I texted the first. “I never use the phrase ‘sure thing’ but I think I’ve got one for you.” Then I outlined the terms.
“So I gotta put up $100K to win $2M if Biden is actually sworn in? Hm. Maybe. I gotta think about it. I honestly don’t think Trump’s gonna leave.”
“Nah man, it’s the other way around – the odds work the other way,” I replied. “And look, he can squat in the White House for all I care. But we’d still win the bet! All that has to happen for us to win is Biden be sworn in — he can live across the damn street. Nothing else matters.”
To be honest, give them the jab, because they are the sort of c***s who think normal lockdown rules don't apply to them anyway and are probably a major vector of transmission.
The partial protection could easily be outweighed by even more c***y behaviour though.
To be honest, give them the jab, because they are the sort of c***s who think normal lockdown rules don't apply to them anyway and are probably a major vector of transmission.
ENGLAND ONLY Jabs (vs previous day) total 301,362 (+76%), first 298,373 (+79%) second 2,989 (-20%) second highest day to date.
And the pearl clutchers can relax (a bit).
Absolutely ridiculous term to use for those that are concerned about the rate. You might be relaxed with undershooting, forgive me if I'm not.
Apols if you've taken it personally. You are normally level headed, but obsessing over daily returns is only going to cause stress in something as complex as this roll-out. There are simply too may factors (overall supply of vaccine, allocation, getting patients lined up, phasing moving to the next patient groups, making sure people aren't left behind - already the press is leaping on stories of 'my 95 year odl grandad hasn't been jabbed, but they are doing the over 70's in the next area').
I completely agree with you about such anecdotes – we see as much and worse on here. But the daily numbers do matter. I might try to pull together a spreadsheet to show how the rate changes, it would probably be better than daily commentary, I will give you that.
I'm already adding the daily data into the spreadsheet I generate. And including it in the graphs it produces...
PM me if you want access to the original spreadsheets.
There is a rather academic, but still quite fun, book about how members of cults mentally deal with situations where end of the world doesn't happen as forecast, called When Prophecy Fails.
Some will rationalize, others will become disillusioned and angry, some will simply allow themselves to fade away from the cult, and will almost pretend to themselves that they were never members, and always doubted the prophecies.
Similar things, I suspect, will happen with QAnon believers.
I remember that book from undergraduate days. I thought the authors had a regrettable tendency to mock the deluded cultists. Why people cling to demonstrably incorrect beliefs is a fascinating topic and worthy of more respect than the authors gave it.
They did however reveal the extreme lengths some people will go to in denying manifest truths, though it remains a mystery how and why some are able to adjust their attitudes whilst others prefer to redefine reality to bring it into line with those attitudes.
Must have been about 1970 when I read it. Would be surprising if our understanding hadn't progressed much since.
Boris just made an obvious observation that of course fish sales across Europe have been hard hit as restaurants and pubs across Europe are currently closed
I had not thought that one, but it is a fair comment
But people are still eating so the fact that restaurants and pubs are closed should have no impact on demand
That rather depends what they are eating. I used to have a regular restaurant meal at an upmarket pub with some mates on a Saturday night. Decent quality food - maybe a slow cooked lamb breast, or roast duck. I can cook pretty well, but haven't always got the energy to bother. On quite a few Saturday nights at the moment I'm probably on frozen pizzas or beans on toast.
I'd imagine that higher value fish is probably particularly badly effected by this - it something with which many people can't be bothered at home, but which often features on restaurant menus. I also don't know how many chip shops are currently shut - my decent local one has closed during this lockdown.
I think folk (even experts) can be given a pass for what they said in the first few months of the pandemic since let's face it we were all at sea, but she was posting this guff in October & November. Of course people were also firing off big old Declarations in October..
I have the same sense of optimism this afternoon as I had when Obama was inaugurated. Quite a contrast to the feeling of at least slight peril that accompanied Mr Trump's arrival.
During the nominations I thought that Biden was too old, and generally past it. I'm really quite pleased that I was wrong on that - he's looking positively spry. I like Harris as his VP too.
As I posted last night (to the dismay of @kinabalu - and thanks for the nice words btw) somehow Obama lived up to little of his promise. Somehow Trump managed to be far better (in some areas) than could possibly have been imagined, and not nearly as bad - although bad - as everyone thought in others.
Fingers crossed therefore that we get a strong presidency from Biden. (I can't imagine I'll like his economic policy, but otherwise I'm hopeful)
There is a rather academic, but still quite fun, book about how members of cults mentally deal with situations where end of the world doesn't happen as forecast, called When Prophecy Fails.
Some will rationalize, others will become disillusioned and angry, some will simply allow themselves to fade away from the cult, and will almost pretend to themselves that they were never members, and always doubted the prophecies.
Similar things, I suspect, will happen with QAnon believers.
I remember that book from undergraduate days. I thought the authors had a regrettable tendency to mock the deluded cultists. Why people cling to demonstrably incorrect beliefs is a fascinating topic and worthy of more respect than the authors gave it.
They did however reveal the extreme lengths some people will go to in denying manifest truths, though it remains a mystery how and why some are able to adjust their attitudes whilst others prefer to redefine reality to bring it into line with those attitudes.
Must have been about 1970 when I read it. Would be surprising if our understanding hadn't progressed much since.
I take it the Moonies were a point of their discussion back then.
I think folk (even experts) can be given a pass for what they said in the first few months of the pandemic since let's face it we were all at sea, but she was posting this guff in October & November. Of course people were also firing off big old Declarations in October..
Indeed, I cannot tell you how much I despise people like this.
To be honest, give them the jab, because they are the sort of c***s who think normal lockdown rules don't apply to them anyway and are probably a major vector of transmission.
Bill them....£1000.
Well, they've broken lockdown to get it. AIUI the max fine for that is ten grand.
That seems proportionate in this case. Maybe sting them for five grand in court costs too.
Will they now have to be scheduled for a second jab?
If they are turned away at the door, will that mean leftovers?
There is a rather academic, but still quite fun, book about how members of cults mentally deal with situations where end of the world doesn't happen as forecast, called When Prophecy Fails.
Some will rationalize, others will become disillusioned and angry, some will simply allow themselves to fade away from the cult, and will almost pretend to themselves that they were never members, and always doubted the prophecies.
Similar things, I suspect, will happen with QAnon believers.
I remember that book from undergraduate days. I thought the authors had a regrettable tendency to mock the deluded cultists. Why people cling to demonstrably incorrect beliefs is a fascinating topic and worthy of more respect than the authors gave it.
They did however reveal the extreme lengths some people will go to in denying manifest truths, though it remains a mystery how and why some are able to adjust their attitudes whilst others prefer to redefine reality to bring it into line with those attitudes.
Must have been about 1970 when I read it. Would be surprising if our understanding hadn't progressed much since.
It has. Jonah Berger's recent book, The Catalyst: How to Change Anyone's Mind, gets into the issue of how people can not only reject facts, but dismiss the person/qualification of the messenger when those facts are too far from their world view. Think Overton window applied to individuals' understanding of the world.
I have the same sense of optimism this afternoon as I had when Obama was inaugurated. Quite a contrast to the feeling of at least slight peril that accompanied Mr Trump's arrival.
During the nominations I thought that Biden was too old, and generally past it. I'm really quite pleased that I was wrong on that - he's looking positively spry. I like Harris as his VP too.
As I posted last night (to the dismay of @kinabalu - and thanks for the nice words btw) somehow Obama lived up to little of his promise. Somehow Trump managed to be far better (in some areas) than could possibly have been imagined, and not nearly as bad - although bad - as everyone thought in others.
Fingers crossed therefore that we get a strong presidency from Biden. (I can't imagine I'll like his economic policy, but otherwise I'm hopeful)
I backed Biden and Buttigieg. And I stuck with Biden when many were saying he was too old and he's had it and 'look he's losing, the old fool'.
Comments
https://twitter.com/shayan86/status/1351890309312094209?s=21
He obviously thinks there is no point trying to change Scottish minds at the moment, the best bet is to ignore them and hope something comes up. It might work - but it doesn't seem likely to lead to a happier union or a stronger democracy.
First Jab 298,373
Second Jab 2,989
For a total of 301,362
Need to do better !!!!
But a good way off 5m.
Some will rationalize, others will become disillusioned and angry, some will simply allow themselves to fade away from the cult, and will almost pretend to themselves that they were never members, and always doubted the prophecies.
Similar things, I suspect, will happen with QAnon believers.
https://twitter.com/Class987FM/status/1351899994031349760?s=20
It says the 95% CI was 29.5 to 68.4 (percent, presumably).
Worth a read:
https://unherd.com/2021/01/the-american-dream-that-failed/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3
Think that was it.
Toby Perkins MP
@tobyperkinsmp
The Chesterfield COVID vaccination centre is closed today and tomorrow because they are out vaccines til Friday.
Their allocation for next week will only be enough to open for 3 days.
They are set up ready to vaccinate big numbers but vaccine numbers are too low.
My guess is that we will see a weekend dip going froward.
Sadly this is not a joke post 😞
Aberdeenshire is a Tory-LD alliance with some "independents" thrown in.
Rejoice!
It is not a nice image.
*Yes, I know he's gone.
25,327
https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1351860454696615939
As with cases, the 7 day averages will be more enlightening and slightly less stress-inducing.
Alas, the lay price is 25.
He was backable at 19 (17 plus boost) on Ladbrokes a few days ago.
I still think it's highly likely another contract will be signed between Hamilton and Mercedes but it's odd how long it's taking.
That seems proportionate in this case. Maybe sting them for five grand in court costs too.
There’s an old poker adage that says, “if you look around the table and can’t figure out who the fish (that is, sucker) is, then you’re probably the fish.”
In a very different realm of gambling, I had a recent experience evoking that maxim.
Just after the Dec. 14 Electoral College vote, an old friend and poker buddy called me. He knew a fellow high-stakes player looking to bet $100,000, with 20:1 odds, that Trump would be sworn in for a second term on Jan. 21.
That meant he needed someone willing to risk $2 million to win $100,000. The funds would be held in escrow for one month at a law firm upon which both parties agreed.
It felt like free money to me.
I’m a former political scientist with a background in campaigns and elections, and given all the evidence-free Trump legal filings, I saw no plausible scenario under which the outcome would change. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations it was a 60 percent annualized return with infinitesimal risk. And where else can you get that, with interest rates approaching zero and savings accounts offering less than 1 percent?
So I started rounding up the dough, using my own savings as seed money.
I had thousands of former donors, some of whom remain friends, from my days as a state senator and congressional wannabe. So I had a decent list of contacts to ask.
“Hey man,” I texted the first. “I never use the phrase ‘sure thing’ but I think I’ve got one for you.” Then I outlined the terms.
“So I gotta put up $100K to win $2M if Biden is actually sworn in? Hm. Maybe. I gotta think about it. I honestly don’t think Trump’s gonna leave.”
“Nah man, it’s the other way around – the odds work the other way,” I replied. “And look, he can squat in the White House for all I care. But we’d still win the bet! All that has to happen for us to win is Biden be sworn in — he can live across the damn street. Nothing else matters.”
“Dunno man. ”
OK, 0 for 1.
https://missouriindependent.com/2021/01/20/i-thought-i-had-a-sure-thing-after-the-d-c-insurrection-im-not-so-sure/
https://twitter.com/byron_auguste/status/1351879849682591745
PM me if you want access to the original spreadsheets.
They did however reveal the extreme lengths some people will go to in denying manifest truths, though it remains a mystery how and why some are able to adjust their attitudes whilst others prefer to redefine reality to bring it into line with those attitudes.
Must have been about 1970 when I read it. Would be surprising if our understanding hadn't progressed much since.
https://twitter.com/KingBorn8/status/1351895449809154049
Bizarre to have an ostensible Williams driver at under 11/1 for the title.
During the nominations I thought that Biden was too old, and generally past it. I'm really quite pleased that I was wrong on that - he's looking positively spry. I like Harris as his VP too.
As I posted last night (to the dismay of @kinabalu - and thanks for the nice words btw) somehow Obama lived up to little of his promise. Somehow Trump managed to be far better (in some areas) than could possibly have been imagined, and not nearly as bad - although bad - as everyone thought in others.
Fingers crossed therefore that we get a strong presidency from Biden. (I can't imagine I'll like his economic policy, but otherwise I'm hopeful)
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1351871521950756864
If they are turned away at the door, will that mean leftovers?
£1000 is nowhere near enough.
That's certainly doable, but as Francis says they could do with a good few days at 500k to take some of the pressure off.
Then came South Carolina.