A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
This is desperate stuff. A referendum with no constitutional bearing, held by an organisation with no constitutional remit, with no opposition campaign, is not going to be seen as anything more than an utter, utter mess. Let them have it at - trying to oppose it legally would be lending it far more credence than it deserves. And afterwards, those responsible for the waste of public money should be held to account.
No that is desperate.
If its a legal referendum, legally held, using the legal powers of a directly elected Parliament, following an election pledging to hold it using their legal powers . . . then who is going to "hold to account" the government for that?
In a democracy the public holds to account their elected government at the following election. The Scottish voters choose their government this year. Their choice in a democracy.
I have to agree with @Philip_Thompson. Simply, the voters are allowed to change their mind. That's why we have elections every four or five years.
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
Yes, absolutely.
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
And the voters would get sick of them, and would kick them out.
Problem solved.
Would they? Doesn't seem to have been the experience post-2014.
However, where would they have got this data? Germany doesn't have any Oxford vaccine, it hasn't even been approved by the EMA, so it would have to come from some country that us using it, or from the trials.
And yet they're going absolutely mental about not getting their deliveries in full. Something doesn't add up.
Seems like the German government are briefing against "the UK" vaccine. An unattributed political source, the FDA are said to be fairly impressed by the AZ data and will approve in the next week or so. Fauci has spoken of it quite positively recently and everyone is working from the same data.
Yes, they have to be all working from the same data. The article Blackrook quotes perhaps suggests that the jury is still out on the over-65 efficacy, but that it appears to work in the same way for all age groups. I suppose it's possible that the MRHA decided that was good enough to go with and the Germans are more cautious. But we don't really know - I suspect clarity will come within a day or two. And as others have said, we should know soon from practical experience as there are a lot of vaccinated over-65s out there now.
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Fuck. Doubling down.
FWIW the article is phrased as implied criticism of the German government, not the British - they say that Germany was relying on the AZ vaccine to supplement the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and although it was known that it would be not quite as effective, the very low effectivenesss for over-65s was a shock. It also says that approval for the vaccine is expected this week, though - perhaps for younger age groups, it doesn't say. It cites "Government circles" for the information.
I don't think it should be read in terms of EU-UK rivalry. That doesn't mean it's correct, but the issue about effectiveness for the over-65s did come up before, as the strange low-dose variant which produced a 90% effectivess subset had no over-65s at all. However, the main trial showed effectiveness well over 50%, so it'd be very odd if the true figure for the over-65s was 8%.
Looking at the Phase III write up, the efficacy for the <55s was within 0.2% of that for the entire group, so it looks impossible.
I did see an 8.8% figure - but that was simply the percentage of the group that was over 70. I wonder if someone got hold of the wrong end of the stick and confused the figures.
So, right now, the EU is simultaneously claiming the UK vaccine is basically useless, threatening to sue the UK vaccine maker for non delivery of the "useless" vaccine, and also threatening to stop paid-for exports of a different vaccine from the EU to the UK by Pfizer (a company which is also being harangued by the EU, and sued by Italy).
Quite gob smacking behaviour.
It is some sort of collective meltdown..
By many on here as they leap energetically like puppies to premature, ill-informed, prejudiced conclusions.
On the face of it, Astrazeneca has a serious case to answer. The assertion is that the EU paid considerable money up front for pre-production of the vaccine and for them to say months later, sorry our supplier screwed up and it turns out we don't have any, doesn't seem like a good answer. Not least because the EU is a big buyer and powerful regulator of their business.
I suspect we may see moves towards compulsory licensing of in-patent drugs.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
They can try things. But simply pointing to the contract and expecting more to magically appear is a weird thing to try.
Isn't the issue that AZN have unfairly prioritised one customer over another when output was less than promised?
Well that is a reasonable question which ought reasonably to have been raised. There might be some truth in it; there might be none at all.
The U.K. and EU supply chains are different. The issue is at the Novasep plant in Belgium (lower yields and a batch failure). The products are not interchangeable.
So a problem in a French owned factory in Belgium is leading the EU to demanding all exports of vaccines are notified and implying the AngloSwedish manufacturer has been selling EU destined supplies to third parties, while German politicians suggest i) its not much cop in the over 65s anyway but ii) nonetheless British vaccine supply should be diverted to the EU to make up for the deficiencies of EU subcontractors.....have I got that right?
US Senator Rob Portmand (R-Ohio) has announced he will NOT seek re-election in 2022. Joins fellow incumbents Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Richard Burr (R-NC) in deciding to retire in two years at end of current term.
And former Trumpsky press secretary (or whatever she was) has announced her candidacy in this year's election for Governor of Arkansas.
A blood mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
At which Boris and the Unionists point and laugh.
If you don't vote, you don't get a say. That's normal politics.
A win is a win is a win.
Either a government acts within its authority or it doesn’t.
An advisory referendum called without alignment with Westminster and boycotted by one side has no power beyond marketing
The advisory referendum worked to perfection for you Tories whe you wanted to take us out from the protection and guarantees of the EU. It was, as you say, just marketing then and continues to be so. This Johnson government is not legitimate.
The EU referendum could have been binding but the Commons chose to make it advisory.
The Scottish government calling an advisory referendum on a matter that is outside its competence is like a big opinion poll
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
Begs the question as to whether we should ever use referenda as a way of solving big national issues as it seems the one thing they don't do is solve big national issues.
As @Philip_Thompson says, we are a democracy and we have elections. Parties have a right to put forward in their manifestos a clear statement of what they would do were they to win a majority in a General Election.
Had Foot's Labour won in 1983, we'd have withdrawn from both the EEC and NATO - now, you could argue people who chose to vote Labour didn't know or understand that but the fact is it was clearly stated in the suicide note.
What then of electoral reform or re-joining the EU? If a Party campaigned for changing the electoral system to STV and to begin negotiations with a view to re-joining the EU and that Party won a majority at a General Election, would anyone argue they didn't have a mandate to carry out these measures?
The problem then becomes that Party governs for five years and the next Government is elected on a mandate to restore the previous voting system and take us out of the EU and so we begin the same old dreary dance.
I am astonished by the EU actions over the vaccines and if ever there was a single reason why we should be pleased we are no longer a member, this is it
I cannot believe anyone who supports the EU can even attempt to justify their actions which are shameful
I expect pharmaceutical companies will be making plans as we speak to move production outside the EU
However, where would they have got this data? Germany doesn't have any Oxford vaccine, it hasn't even been approved by the EMA, so it would have to come from some country that us using it, or from the trials.
And yet they're going absolutely mental about not getting their deliveries in full. Something doesn't add up.
Seems like the German government are briefing against "the UK" vaccine. An unattributed political source, the FDA are said to be fairly impressed by the AZ data and will approve in the next week or so. Fauci has spoken of it quite positively recently and everyone is working from the same data.
Yes, they have to be all working from the same data. The article Blackrook quotes perhaps suggests that the jury is still out on the over-65 efficacy, but that it appears to work in the same way for all age groups. I suppose it's possible that the MRHA decided that was good enough to go with and the Germans are more cautious. But we don't really know - I suspect clarity will come within a day or two. And as others have said, we should know soon from practical experience as there are a lot of vaccinated over-65s out there now.
All I'd say on top of that is if these tales aren't credible then the person responsible should be (metaphorically) strung up for telling them. Just when there's finally hope of release from this unrelenting misery we don't need bullshitters scaring the hell out of people for no good reason.
A blood mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
At which Boris and the Unionists point and laugh.
If you don't vote, you don't get a say. That's normal politics.
A win is a win is a win.
Either a government acts within its authority or it doesn’t.
An advisory referendum called without alignment with Westminster and boycotted by one side has no power beyond marketing
The advisory referendum worked to perfection for you Tories whe you wanted to take us out from the protection and guarantees of the EU. It was, as you say, just marketing then and continues to be so. This Johnson government is not legitimate.
The EU referendum could have been binding but the Commons chose to make it advisory.
Then several times pretended it was binding with talk of having delegated the decision to the people.
I guess the question is 'what are we expecting? I mentioned yesterday that daily death toll and cases toll isn't down much in Israel beyond what you'd expect from a lockdown, but what would you expect? Back of an envelope, feel free to improve:
- Few new cases resulting from vaccines 14 days ago, and we'd see that in next week. - On January 4th, 21 days ago, Israel had vaccinated 15% of its population. - That's probably increased immunity levels (at full efficacy) from 10 - > 22% of the population by now, and should be now suppressing R by about 15% on each cycle - On Dec 28th, 6% were vaccinated, some mix of healthcare workers and elderly. I suspect the extra suppression of hospitalisation would be a little more than 6% but not necessarily that much more. - On December 21st, 0.34% of Israelis had been vaccinated, again I guess the bias towards healthcare in the very early days means death suppression should barely be visible.
I did speak to a constitutional expert/lawyer this morning.
He thinks what will happen is
1) Scottish Government will ask for a referendum
2) UK Government will say no
3) Scottish Government holds one anyway and wins
4) Scottish Government asks the UK Government to start talks on Scexit deal
5) UK Government says no, the Scottish referendum has no weight as it wasn't a section 30 authorised referendum
6) Scottish Government takes this to the courts
7) SCOTUK will probably say the Scottish Government has acted outside its powers ending any talk of Scexit based on 3)
8) However it may rule that a lawful referendum be granted (or ask the UK Government what exactly it considers the trigger for a S30 referendum) because if a party or parties committed to holding Indref2 consistently winning the popular vote/most/majority seats consistently at Westminster and Holyrood elections isn't a trigger then what is?
9) The UK Government response to 8) could trigger all sorts of unintended consequences, I suspect the Belfast agreement and possibly the Australian marriage law postal survey maybe cited.
I doubt the court will rule that a lawful referendum be granted because that would be absolutely a power grab by the courts when the power was explicitly retained by Westminster
You misunderstand, the court won't rule that a lawful referendum be granted, they'll ask the government to explain what, for example, how long they consider a generation lasts, and does it require a majority of votes or seats, and does Westminster or Holyrood election count.
The government response will be interesting for all sorts of reasons.
Oh I agree with that.
But I absolutely didn’t misunderstand... your use of the word “or” indicated two options...
Can't read it - paywalled. Amy hope of an extract, please? But I wonder if the DT has it in its dim brain, somewhere in the region of its institutional hip girdle, that anything written in Jockanese is SNP BAAAAAD.
Just wait till they discover the Unionist stuff he wrote.
And consider the whole issue of shag'em and leave'em to hold the baby. It's not just council estate young males who do that.
US Senator Rob Portmand (R-Ohio) has announced he will NOT seek re-election in 2022. Joins fellow incumbents Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Richard Burr (R-NC) in deciding to retire in two years at end of current term.
And former Trumpsky press secretary (or whatever she was) has announced her candidacy in this year's election for Governor of Arkansas.
I remember Portman from when he changed his position on gay marriage, the first sitting Republican Senator to do so IIRC.
Can't read it - paywalled. Amy hope of an extract, please? But I wonder if the DT has it in its dim brain, somewhere in the region of its institutional hip girdle, that anything written in Jockanese is SNP BAAAAAD.
Just wait till they discover the Unionist stuff he wrote.
And consider the whole issue of shag'em and leave'em to hold the baby. It's not just council estate young males who do that.
“He also enjoyed what another Scot’s son – Donald Trump – might call “locker room talk”, boasting of being an “old hawk at the sport” of seduction. In one letter, written to a friend about Jean Armour, who was pregnant with his twins, he boasts that he “f----- her till she rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory” – before making her swear “never to attempt any claim on me as a husband”. (He would, later, go on to marry her.) The contract made, he sealed the deal by taking “the opportunity of some dry horse litter and gave her such a thundering scalade [a military assault] that electrified the very marrow of her bones”. “
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
This is desperate stuff. A referendum with no constitutional bearing, held by an organisation with no constitutional remit, with no opposition campaign, is not going to be seen as anything more than an utter, utter mess. Let them have it at - trying to oppose it legally would be lending it far more credence than it deserves. And afterwards, those responsible for the waste of public money should be held to account.
No that is desperate.
If its a legal referendum, legally held, using the legal powers of a directly elected Parliament, following an election pledging to hold it using their legal powers . . . then who is going to "hold to account" the government for that?
In a democracy the public holds to account their elected government at the following election. The Scottish voters choose their government this year. Their choice in a democracy.
I have to agree with @Philip_Thompson. Simply, the voters are allowed to change their mind. That's why we have elections every four or five years.
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
Yes, absolutely.
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
Only if there was a general election called inbetween every week won by the SNP.
And if there was then the public would have the right to vote for someone other than the SNP to stop the madness.
"+++ AstraZeneca vaccine hardly effective in older people according to report +++ 8:38 p.m.: The Corona vaccine, from astraZeneca, appears to be of little efficacy in the elderly. As the Handelsblatt reports, citing government sources, the vaccine is expected to be effective at only eight percent among the over-65s.
However, the Bild newspaper also reports, citing government sources, that the vaccine should only be approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for under-65s.
According to the Handelsblatt report, the Federal Ministry of Health is already examining whether the vaccination order, which is graded according to age, needs to be adjusted. According to handelsblatt, there is no comment from the ministry on the possible consequences of the low effectiveness on the government's vaccination plan.
A final result on the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine is not yet possible, according to the newspaper. In the pharmaceutical group's clinical studies, however, older persons appeared to be relatively poorly represented. The UK regulatory authority MHRA had therefore already noted that meaningful results on the effectiveness of the vaccine could not be determined in these studies.
Can't read it - paywalled. Amy hope of an extract, please? But I wonder if the DT has it in its dim brain, somewhere in the region of its institutional hip girdle, that anything written in Jockanese is SNP BAAAAAD.
Just wait till they discover the Unionist stuff he wrote.
And consider the whole issue of shag'em and leave'em to hold the baby. It's not just council estate young males who do that.
They base it, in part, on his plans to manage a slave plantation, and the fact the Liz Lochhead, that well known supporter of Scottish independence, comments from 2018 about
He [Burns] also enjoyed what another Scot’s son – Donald Trump – might call “locker room talk”, boasting of being an “old hawk at the sport” of seduction. In one letter, written to a friend about Jean Armour, who was pregnant with his twins, he boasts that he “f----- her till she rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory” – before making her swear “never to attempt any claim on me as a husband”. (He would, later, go on to marry her.) The contract made, he sealed the deal by taking “the opportunity of some dry horse litter and gave her such a thundering scalade [a military assault] that electrified the very marrow of her bones”.
when she called this latter conquest a “disgraceful sexual boast”, that seemed “very like rape of his heavily pregnant girlfriend. It’s very, very Weinsteinian.”
Her comments prompted outcry. “I think we have to be careful that we’re not comparing the standards of the time Burns lived in to the standards we have today,” said Caroline Smith, of the Robert Burns Birthplace Museum.
“It would not have been considered gentlemanly, or moral, or even humane,” Lochhead hit back in an email to me. “Even at the time.”
It's a bit rich for the EU to complain about the supply of a vaccine that was developed here in the UK. Obviously we should help out if we can because it would be petty not to.
A referendum which isn't legally authorised and internationally recognised is absolutely no use at all for the Nats, except to further stoke the already well-stoked grievance machine. They must know this, so there's a huge amount of bluster here.
From the point of view of the Conservative government, I really can't see any upside to agreeing the referendum. Better to say No, ignore the fuss, and leave it to the next Labour PM to impale himself or herself on the spike.
If its authorised by the Scottish Parliament - and if the Scottish Parliament has the legal authority to authorise it - then how is that not legally authorised?
The UK has a proud history of respecting democracy. Is the union more important than that?
Because the Scottish Parliament’s authority is bounded by the Westminster law.
The Scottish Parliament's authority extends to almost everything the Scottish Parliament wishes to set a law on - they don't have to apply for Westminster's permission before they pass a bill - apart from reserved matters.
If the United Kingdom Supreme Court rules that an advisory referendum is not a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament has the authority to hold an advisory referendum, then it is a legally authorised referendum.
Yes, how many different ways can you restate the obvious? If my aunt had balls, she would have balls and if not, not. Nobody is disagreeing.
Can't read it - paywalled. Amy hope of an extract, please? But I wonder if the DT has it in its dim brain, somewhere in the region of its institutional hip girdle, that anything written in Jockanese is SNP BAAAAAD.
Just wait till they discover the Unionist stuff he wrote.
And consider the whole issue of shag'em and leave'em to hold the baby. It's not just council estate young males who do that.
“He also enjoyed what another Scot’s son – Donald Trump – might call “locker room talk”, boasting of being an “old hawk at the sport” of seduction. In one letter, written to a friend about Jean Armour, who was pregnant with his twins, he boasts that he “f----- her till she rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory” – before making her swear “never to attempt any claim on me as a husband”. (He would, later, go on to marry her.) The contract made, he sealed the deal by taking “the opportunity of some dry horse litter and gave her such a thundering scalade [a military assault] that electrified the very marrow of her bones”. “
Thanks for that.
Hmm.
It's been known for like decades that he was hopelessly conflicted - that's part of the fascination of the man. In fact centuries. IIRC one reason there are so few stachoos of him in Scotland. The radical stuff he wrote was real hanging, drawing and quartering stuff even then. Just look at 'A man's a man for a that' - no wonder he had to write some Britnat stuff in a tearing hurry. He even signed up to be a slave driver (but his poetry got him out of that).
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
This is desperate stuff. A referendum with no constitutional bearing, held by an organisation with no constitutional remit, with no opposition campaign, is not going to be seen as anything more than an utter, utter mess. Let them have it at - trying to oppose it legally would be lending it far more credence than it deserves. And afterwards, those responsible for the waste of public money should be held to account.
No that is desperate.
If its a legal referendum, legally held, using the legal powers of a directly elected Parliament, following an election pledging to hold it using their legal powers . . . then who is going to "hold to account" the government for that?
In a democracy the public holds to account their elected government at the following election. The Scottish voters choose their government this year. Their choice in a democracy.
I have to agree with @Philip_Thompson. Simply, the voters are allowed to change their mind. That's why we have elections every four or five years.
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
Yes, absolutely.
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
And the voters would get sick of them, and would kick them out.
Problem solved.
Would they? Doesn't seem to have been the experience post-2014.
But it's quite ridiculous to extrapolate from having a 2nd Ref 7 years later because of the enormity of Brexit to the notion they will return an SNP govt and hold indy refs - and vote No - the whole time and on a regular basis for decades. Suggest a touch of Scotophobia is informing your analysis.
Starting to be a rather prominent bit of reporting, so it's either media snowballing or they are pretty certain the story is correct.
The problem nowadays you never know...see the FT claims on government spending on "moonshot" testing. One idiot can't read tender documents properly and within 24hrs every media outlet in the UK had reported the cost of the future NHS diagnostic upgrade for the next 10 years as the cost of some rapid testing kits.
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Fuck. Doubling down.
FWIW the article is phrased as implied criticism of the German government, not the British - they say that Germany was relying on the AZ vaccine to supplement the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and although it was known that it would be not quite as effective, the very low effectivenesss for over-65s was a shock. It also says that approval for the vaccine is expected this week, though - perhaps for younger age groups, it doesn't say. It cites "Government circles" for the information.
I don't think it should be read in terms of EU-UK rivalry. That doesn't mean it's correct, but the issue about effectiveness for the over-65s did come up before, as the strange low-dose variant which produced a 90% effectivess subset had no over-65s at all. However, the main trial showed effectiveness well over 50%, so it'd be very odd if the true figure for the over-65s was 8%.
Looking at the Phase III write up, the efficacy for the under 55s was within 0.2% of that for the entire group, so it looks impossible.
I did see an 8.8% figure - but that was simply the percentage of the group that was over 70. I wonder if someone got hold of the wrong end of the stick and confused the figures.
That sounds about right if the source was a politician.
Bild now reporting that EMA will only approve for under 65s due to insufficient data for the elderly. Manna for anti-vaxxers.
And if it was true why is the EU so grumpy about not getting enough?
The German media appears to be convinced their sources are right.
With the BMA already trashing the vaccine rollout strategy this could spark worry over here if the European authorities do make the decision that is being reported.
And if it was true why is the EU so grumpy about not getting enough?
The German media appears to be convinced their sources are right.
With the BMA already trashing the vaccine rollout strategy this could spark worry over here if the European authorities do make the decision that is being reported.
Or are they convinced that the reporting of the source is right?
Can't read it - paywalled. Amy hope of an extract, please? But I wonder if the DT has it in its dim brain, somewhere in the region of its institutional hip girdle, that anything written in Jockanese is SNP BAAAAAD.
Just wait till they discover the Unionist stuff he wrote.
And consider the whole issue of shag'em and leave'em to hold the baby. It's not just council estate young males who do that.
They base it, in part, on his plans to manage a slave plantation, and the fact the Liz Lochhead, that well known supporter of Scottish independence, comments from 2018 about
He [Burns] also enjoyed what another Scot’s son – Donald Trump – might call “locker room talk”, boasting of being an “old hawk at the sport” of seduction. In one letter, written to a friend about Jean Armour, who was pregnant with his twins, he boasts that he “f----- her till she rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory” – before making her swear “never to attempt any claim on me as a husband”. (He would, later, go on to marry her.) The contract made, he sealed the deal by taking “the opportunity of some dry horse litter and gave her such a thundering scalade [a military assault] that electrified the very marrow of her bones”.
when she called this latter conquest a “disgraceful sexual boast”, that seemed “very like rape of his heavily pregnant girlfriend. It’s very, very Weinsteinian.”
Her comments prompted outcry. “I think we have to be careful that we’re not comparing the standards of the time Burns lived in to the standards we have today,” said Caroline Smith, of the Robert Burns Birthplace Museum.
“It would not have been considered gentlemanly, or moral, or even humane,” Lochhead hit back in an email to me. “Even at the time.”
Thanks for that. I'm not familiar enouygh with the subtleties of 1790s bar talk to judge. Bujt his shag em and (sometimes) leave em did not go down well at the time with quite a few. So that's nothing new. Just DT being anti-Jockanese because they think it will upset us.
Ironically it's often the pro-Union types who are particularly into Burns Suppers - so I'm wondering who the DT thinks it's upsetting.
And if it was true why is the EU so grumpy about not getting enough?
The German media appears to be convinced their sources are right.
With the BMA already trashing the vaccine rollout strategy this could spark worry over here if the European authorities do make the decision that is being reported.
That could be a real worry if your country wasn't keen on vaccination.....unlike the UK, but like France, for example.....
Can't read it - paywalled. Amy hope of an extract, please? But I wonder if the DT has it in its dim brain, somewhere in the region of its institutional hip girdle, that anything written in Jockanese is SNP BAAAAAD.
Just wait till they discover the Unionist stuff he wrote.
And consider the whole issue of shag'em and leave'em to hold the baby. It's not just council estate young males who do that.
They base it, in part, on his plans to manage a slave plantation, and the fact the Liz Lochhead, that well known supporter of Scottish independence, comments from 2018 about
He [Burns] also enjoyed what another Scot’s son – Donald Trump – might call “locker room talk”, boasting of being an “old hawk at the sport” of seduction. In one letter, written to a friend about Jean Armour, who was pregnant with his twins, he boasts that he “f----- her till she rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory” – before making her swear “never to attempt any claim on me as a husband”. (He would, later, go on to marry her.) The contract made, he sealed the deal by taking “the opportunity of some dry horse litter and gave her such a thundering scalade [a military assault] that electrified the very marrow of her bones”.
when she called this latter conquest a “disgraceful sexual boast”, that seemed “very like rape of his heavily pregnant girlfriend. It’s very, very Weinsteinian.”
Her comments prompted outcry. “I think we have to be careful that we’re not comparing the standards of the time Burns lived in to the standards we have today,” said Caroline Smith, of the Robert Burns Birthplace Museum.
“It would not have been considered gentlemanly, or moral, or even humane,” Lochhead hit back in an email to me. “Even at the time.”
Thanks for that. I'm not familiar enouygh with the subtleties of 1790s bar talk to judge. Bujt his shag em and (sometimes) leave em did not go down well at the time with quite a few. So that's nothing new. Just DT being anti-Jockanese because they think it will upset us.
Ironically it's often the pro-Union types who are particularly into Burns Suppers - so I'm wondering who the DT thinks it's upsetting.
Can't read it - paywalled. Amy hope of an extract, please? But I wonder if the DT has it in its dim brain, somewhere in the region of its institutional hip girdle, that anything written in Jockanese is SNP BAAAAAD.
Just wait till they discover the Unionist stuff he wrote.
And consider the whole issue of shag'em and leave'em to hold the baby. It's not just council estate young males who do that.
They base it, in part, on his plans to manage a slave plantation, and the fact the Liz Lochhead, that well known supporter of Scottish independence, comments from 2018 about
He [Burns] also enjoyed what another Scot’s son – Donald Trump – might call “locker room talk”, boasting of being an “old hawk at the sport” of seduction. In one letter, written to a friend about Jean Armour, who was pregnant with his twins, he boasts that he “f----- her till she rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory” – before making her swear “never to attempt any claim on me as a husband”. (He would, later, go on to marry her.) The contract made, he sealed the deal by taking “the opportunity of some dry horse litter and gave her such a thundering scalade [a military assault] that electrified the very marrow of her bones”.
when she called this latter conquest a “disgraceful sexual boast”, that seemed “very like rape of his heavily pregnant girlfriend. It’s very, very Weinsteinian.”
Her comments prompted outcry. “I think we have to be careful that we’re not comparing the standards of the time Burns lived in to the standards we have today,” said Caroline Smith, of the Robert Burns Birthplace Museum.
“It would not have been considered gentlemanly, or moral, or even humane,” Lochhead hit back in an email to me. “Even at the time.”
Thanks for that. I'm not familiar enouygh with the subtleties of 1790s bar talk to judge. Bujt his shag em and (sometimes) leave em did not go down well at the time with quite a few. So that's nothing new. Just DT being anti-Jockanese because they think it will upset us.
Ironically it's often the pro-Union types who are particularly into Burns Suppers - so I'm wondering who the DT thinks it's upsetting.
How many Scotch Jocks read the DT to get upset?
The British nationalists do. Certainly not the independistas. But you may have a point. [Edit] It may be targeting a differentd audience, souith of the border.
Is Mr Johnson trying to avoid coming up for Burns Nicht?
Israel - what would we expect in 14 days time, back of envelope:
- Cases: 30% of population were vaccinated 7 days ago, so immune from 10 -> 35%. R suppression up to (0.55/0.9) = 40%. - R now (at 15% suppression) = 0.84 -> expected R around 0.6 (or a case reduction of UP TO 60% reduction per week) in a fortnight. (plus restriction led falls, minus any lack of efficacy). This would be an R noticeably below anything we've seen elsewhere. - Hospitalisations: 22% of the population were immunised 2 weeks ago. That's approximately completing the over 70s and some over 60s on a UK like programme. Let's say 50% fewer hospitalisations relative to the number of cases the week before (based on memory prior work here) - Deaths: 16% of the population were immunised 3 weeks ago. Probably covers the over 80s and many over 70s. Deaths up to 60% down from expected on relative to the number of cases a fortnight before.
Even if the numbers are a bit rough here, the conclusion is we should be seeing something quite marked in Israel in a fortnight's time.
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Unless they can back this up PDQ with authoritative expert info then this is very dangerous territory they are entering.
I'd much prefer an abject grovelling retraction.
A small note on page 33 in 6 weeks is probably what we can expect. It's absolutely ridiculous.
I think it unlikely to be that poor in the elderly, but vaccine responses are much less in older patients. AZN hasn't really published enough to comment on what the effectiveness is in the elderly, particularly with a delayed second dose. So genuinely hard to say at present what the 5rue figure is. We will have some idea by Easter.
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Unless they can back this up PDQ with authoritative expert info then this is very dangerous territory they are entering.
I'd much prefer an abject grovelling retraction.
A small note on page 33 in 6 weeks is probably what we can expect. It's absolutely ridiculous.
I think it unlikely to be that poor in the elderly, but vaccine responses are much less in older patients. AZN hasn't really published enough to comment on what the effectiveness is in the elderly, particularly with a delayed second dose. So genuinely hard to say at present what the 5rue figure is. We will have some idea by Easter.
Perhaps I'm reading the phase 2 results incorrectly, but the response looked very similar.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
This is desperate stuff. A referendum with no constitutional bearing, held by an organisation with no constitutional remit, with no opposition campaign, is not going to be seen as anything more than an utter, utter mess. Let them have it at - trying to oppose it legally would be lending it far more credence than it deserves. And afterwards, those responsible for the waste of public money should be held to account.
No that is desperate.
If its a legal referendum, legally held, using the legal powers of a directly elected Parliament, following an election pledging to hold it using their legal powers . . . then who is going to "hold to account" the government for that?
In a democracy the public holds to account their elected government at the following election. The Scottish voters choose their government this year. Their choice in a democracy.
I have to agree with @Philip_Thompson. Simply, the voters are allowed to change their mind. That's why we have elections every four or five years.
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
Yes, absolutely.
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
And the voters would get sick of them, and would kick them out.
Problem solved.
Would they? Doesn't seem to have been the experience post-2014.
The voters *would* get sick of them, if they kept calling referendums.
So far there has been one Scottish independence referendum, seven years ago.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
This is desperate stuff. A referendum with no constitutional bearing, held by an organisation with no constitutional remit, with no opposition campaign, is not going to be seen as anything more than an utter, utter mess. Let them have it at - trying to oppose it legally would be lending it far more credence than it deserves. And afterwards, those responsible for the waste of public money should be held to account.
No that is desperate.
If its a legal referendum, legally held, using the legal powers of a directly elected Parliament, following an election pledging to hold it using their legal powers . . . then who is going to "hold to account" the government for that?
In a democracy the public holds to account their elected government at the following election. The Scottish voters choose their government this year. Their choice in a democracy.
I have to agree with @Philip_Thompson. Simply, the voters are allowed to change their mind. That's why we have elections every four or five years.
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
Yes, absolutely.
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
And the voters would get sick of them, and would kick them out.
Problem solved.
Would they? Doesn't seem to have been the experience post-2014.
But it's quite ridiculous to extrapolate from having a 2nd Ref 7 years later because of the enormity of Brexit to the notion they will return an SNP govt and hold indy refs - and vote No - the whole time and on a regular basis for decades. Suggest a touch of Scotophobia is informing your analysis.
That's unwarranted. I'm simply concerned at the possibility that, in the event of a second referendum defeat, a very large cohort of Scottish voters - those desperate for independence to the exclusion of everything else, plus those voting SNP because they think they're best for "standing up for Scotland" - will simply put yet another SNP Government straight back into bat at the following parliamentary election, and they'll set about finding an excuse for a third referendum. It's not at all far-fetched to believe that we'll end up stuck in a situation where the Scottish electorate expects to receive huge annual transfer payments and a proportional share of vital national infrastructure spending, whilst simultaneously returning leaders who expect an unending cycle of plebiscites on secession to continue.
The rest of the UK deserves some consideration, some peace and some stability in all of this. If Scotland stays part of the set up then we are unlikely to get it.
Israel - what would we expect in 14 days time, back of envelope:
- Cases: 30% of population were vaccinated 7 days ago, so immune from 10 -> 35%. R suppression up to (0.55/0.9) = 40%. - R now (at 15% suppression) = 0.84 -> expected R around 0.6 (or a case reduction of UP TO 60% reduction per week) in a fortnight. (plus restriction led falls, minus any lack of efficacy). This would be an R noticeably below anything we've seen elsewhere. - Hospitalisations: 22% of the population were immunised 2 weeks ago. That's approximately completing the over 70s and some over 60s on a UK like programme. Let's say 50% fewer hospitalisations relative to the number of cases the week before (based on memory prior work here) - Deaths: 16% of the population were immunised 3 weeks ago. Probably covers the over 80s and many over 70s. Deaths up to 60% down from expected on relative to the number of cases a fortnight before.
Even if the numbers are a bit rough here, the conclusion is we should be seeing something quite marked in Israel in a fortnight's time.
I could see something going like: “We don’t really have sufficient data on efficacy for older age groups. Only 8% were in that group”
“Only 8%?”
“Yes. So we’re only approving it for the under 65s at the moment.”
.... and then someone goes away with the 8% figure and assumes it was the efficacy for the older group.
It is indeed suspicious the two numbers are the same. Either there were enough oldies to accurately measure the efficacy in that group, in which case the data would have been available to all the regulators, or....
Isn’t this 8% figure swirling around now like - potentially really dangerous misinformation on the kind of scale the Russians partake in.
If the EU have had a collective hissy fit and this is the result - then that is really, really worrying
It feels a lot like a "it's shit anyway and we don't want it" sort of thing. But it would be extremely petty if that's the case. As many have pointed out, in the P2 trial the age differential in actual observed immune response was pretty small.
Isn’t this 8% figure swirling around now like - potentially really dangerous misinformation on the kind of scale the Russians partake in.
If the EU have had a collective hissy fit and this is the result - then that is really, really worrying
It feels a lot like a "it's shit anyway and we don't want it" sort of thing. But it would be extremely petty if that's the case. As many have pointed out, in the P2 trial the age differential in actual observed immune response was pretty small.
Like those that didn't get a PS5 for Christmas because they didn't preorder.
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
There is public data about immunogenicity in over 65s here but "the level of immune response that provides protection against COVID-19 is unknown" because there weren't enough people in the sample to judge. I suspect the 8% number is a misinterpretation.
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
Isn’t this 8% figure swirling around now like - potentially really dangerous misinformation on the kind of scale the Russians partake in.
If the EU have had a collective hissy fit and this is the result - then that is really, really worrying
It feels a lot like a "it's shit anyway and we don't want it" sort of thing. But it would be extremely petty if that's the case. As many have pointed out, in the P2 trial the age differential in actual observed immune response was pretty small.
Like those that didn't get a PS5 for Christmas because they didn't preorder.
Isn’t this 8% figure swirling around now like - potentially really dangerous misinformation on the kind of scale the Russians partake in.
If the EU have had a collective hissy fit and this is the result - then that is really, really worrying
It feels a lot like a "it's shit anyway and we don't want it" sort of thing. But it would be extremely petty if that's the case. As many have pointed out, in the P2 trial the age differential in actual observed immune response was pretty small.
If that’s the case - then it is utterly dangerous. Gives rise to potential anti vax sentiment
As someone who works with large datasets for a living I'd say "data is" not "data are" because data is singular and also "data are" is very jarring to say/read.
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
If the EU were to block exports of vaccine, that would be a hostile act - not just to us, but to many other countries who have purchased vaccines from EU based companies.
And while the political pressures will - I'm sure - be great, I would hope that they will resist the urge.
The EU put far too much store in their vaccine purchase plans on the AZ vaccine which is why they are so upset right now. They did get a bit caught out.
The reality is though the choices are limited. Sanofi and Merck have had major setbacks on their vaccine plans, Merck may well be dropping their plans entirely, so it shows the complexity
It also doesn't suggest you are doing things right when your largest EU economy appears to be making its own deals with Pfizer.
The 8% idea appears odd, you'd have to wonder if the UK would have touched it and you'd have to assume some kind of over 65 cohort in the trials. The EMA however does seem painfully slow in getting AZ approved given its cornerstone status so either there is wrangling or they do see some notable limitations. Those who have mentioned the possible repercussions regarding anti vaxxers are right but even if the story is somewhat not as dramatic as the headline the media will lap it up as well.
To get even 50% efficacy with two shots would do. To get the rate down of serious illness by a large degree would do but it appears that science isn't really science, its an interpretation and far too many people are enjoying their time in the sun with the outer reaches of such interpretation.
Yes you Independent Sage. Annoyed that other scientists are getting more coverage? Vanity project.
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
If the EU were to block exports of vaccine, that would be a hostile act - not just to us, but to many other countries who have purchased vaccines from EU based companies.
And while the political pressures will - I'm sure - be great, I would hope that they will resist the urge.
Aiui the Belgian manufacturing feeds the US supply chain as well as the UK, Canada and Israel. Honestly, it would shatter the western alliance IMO and multinationals would have to think twice before locating manufacturing of sensitive goods in the EU.
As someone who works with large datasets for a living I'd say "data is" not "data are" because data is singular and also "data are" is very jarring to say/read.
Precisely. The data is the collection and the collection is singular.
A word is singular, even if it has multiple characters. A sentence is singular, even if it has many words. A paragraph is singular, even if it has many sentences, with many words. A page is singular, even if it has many paragraphs. A book is singular, even if it has many pages. A library is singular, even if it has many books.
Data is singular, even if the collection of facts and figures within the data is vast.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
This is desperate stuff. A referendum with no constitutional bearing, held by an organisation with no constitutional remit, with no opposition campaign, is not going to be seen as anything more than an utter, utter mess. Let them have it at - trying to oppose it legally would be lending it far more credence than it deserves. And afterwards, those responsible for the waste of public money should be held to account.
No that is desperate.
If its a legal referendum, legally held, using the legal powers of a directly elected Parliament, following an election pledging to hold it using their legal powers . . . then who is going to "hold to account" the government for that?
In a democracy the public holds to account their elected government at the following election. The Scottish voters choose their government this year. Their choice in a democracy.
I have to agree with @Philip_Thompson. Simply, the voters are allowed to change their mind. That's why we have elections every four or five years.
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
Yes, absolutely.
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
Well make rules for it then, like there are for Northern Ireland, at least a 7 year gap between border polls.
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
The Wall Street Journal has just published this blog post, in which it finally decides to move away from data "are", saying:
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions. Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
Comments
https://www.timesofisrael.com/week-after-2nd-pfizer-vaccine-shot-only-20-of-128000-israelis-get-covid/
I did see an 8.8% figure - but that was simply the percentage of the group that was over 70.
I wonder if someone got hold of the wrong end of the stick and confused the figures.
And former Trumpsky press secretary (or whatever she was) has announced her candidacy in this year's election for Governor of Arkansas.
Robert Burns was the Harvey Weinstein of his day. Should we still celebrate him?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/weinsteinian-still-ok-celebrate-robert-burns/
The Scottish government calling an advisory referendum on a matter that is outside its competence is like a big opinion poll
As @Philip_Thompson says, we are a democracy and we have elections. Parties have a right to put forward in their manifestos a clear statement of what they would do were they to win a majority in a General Election.
Had Foot's Labour won in 1983, we'd have withdrawn from both the EEC and NATO - now, you could argue people who chose to vote Labour didn't know or understand that but the fact is it was clearly stated in the suicide note.
What then of electoral reform or re-joining the EU? If a Party campaigned for changing the electoral system to STV and to begin negotiations with a view to re-joining the EU and that Party won a majority at a General Election, would anyone argue they didn't have a mandate to carry out these measures?
The problem then becomes that Party governs for five years and the next Government is elected on a mandate to restore the previous voting system and take us out of the EU and so we begin the same old dreary dance.
I cannot believe anyone who supports the EU can even attempt to justify their actions which are shameful
I expect pharmaceutical companies will be making plans as we speak to move production outside the EU
- Few new cases resulting from vaccines 14 days ago, and we'd see that in next week.
- On January 4th, 21 days ago, Israel had vaccinated 15% of its population.
- That's probably increased immunity levels (at full efficacy) from 10 - > 22% of the population by now, and should be now suppressing R by about 15% on each cycle
- On Dec 28th, 6% were vaccinated, some mix of healthcare workers and elderly. I suspect the extra suppression of hospitalisation would be a little more than 6% but not necessarily that much more.
- On December 21st, 0.34% of Israelis had been vaccinated, again I guess the bias towards healthcare in the very early days means death suppression should barely be visible.
But I absolutely didn’t misunderstand... your use of the word “or” indicated two options...
Just wait till they discover the Unionist stuff he wrote.
And consider the whole issue of shag'em and leave'em to hold the baby. It's not just council estate young males who do that.
And if there was then the public would have the right to vote for someone other than the SNP to stop the madness.
"+++ AstraZeneca vaccine hardly effective in older people according to report +++
8:38 p.m.: The Corona vaccine, from astraZeneca, appears to be of little efficacy in the elderly. As the Handelsblatt reports, citing government sources, the vaccine is expected to be effective at only eight percent among the over-65s.
However, the Bild newspaper also reports, citing government sources, that the vaccine should only be approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for under-65s.
According to the Handelsblatt report, the Federal Ministry of Health is already examining whether the vaccination order, which is graded according to age, needs to be adjusted. According to handelsblatt, there is no comment from the ministry on the possible consequences of the low effectiveness on the government's vaccination plan.
A final result on the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine is not yet possible, according to the newspaper. In the pharmaceutical group's clinical studies, however, older persons appeared to be relatively poorly represented. The UK regulatory authority MHRA had therefore already noted that meaningful results on the effectiveness of the vaccine could not be determined in these studies.
AstraZeneca is already under pressure because it does not appear to be able to meet the contractually agreed quantities of the vaccine to the EU. The British-Swedish group saidon Friday that it would deliver only 31 million doses by the end of March, instead of 80, after the approval of its vaccine - which is due to be delivered later this week."
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/corona-news-am-montag-erste-schuloeffnungen-anfang-februar-moeglich-a-f08b28d7-51c6-490b-a300-e2ac77f6609f
(translated by google)
And if it was true why is the EU so grumpy about not getting enough?
He [Burns] also enjoyed what another Scot’s son – Donald Trump – might call “locker room talk”, boasting of being an “old hawk at the sport” of seduction. In one letter, written to a friend about Jean Armour, who was pregnant with his twins, he boasts that he “f----- her till she rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory” – before making her swear “never to attempt any claim on me as a husband”. (He would, later, go on to marry her.) The contract made, he sealed the deal by taking “the opportunity of some dry horse litter and gave her such a thundering scalade [a military assault] that electrified the very marrow of her bones”.
when she called this latter conquest a “disgraceful sexual boast”, that seemed “very like rape of his heavily pregnant girlfriend. It’s very, very Weinsteinian.”
Her comments prompted outcry. “I think we have to be careful that we’re not comparing the standards of the time Burns lived in to the standards we have today,” said Caroline Smith, of the Robert Burns Birthplace Museum.
“It would not have been considered gentlemanly, or moral, or even humane,” Lochhead hit back in an email to me. “Even at the time.”
Hmm.
It's been known for like decades that he was hopelessly conflicted - that's part of the fascination of the man. In fact centuries. IIRC one reason there are so few stachoos of him in Scotland. The radical stuff he wrote was real hanging, drawing and quartering stuff even then. Just look at 'A man's a man for a that' - no wonder he had to write some Britnat stuff in a tearing hurry. He even signed up to be a slave driver (but his poetry got him out of that).
Bild now reporting that EMA will only approve for under 65s due to insufficient data for the elderly. Manna for anti-vaxxers.
With the BMA already trashing the vaccine rollout strategy this could spark worry over here if the European authorities do make the decision that is being reported.
https://twitter.com/MarisaKabas/status/1353775242947264514
Ironically it's often the pro-Union types who are particularly into Burns Suppers - so I'm wondering who the DT thinks it's upsetting.
nor can we make public any underlying data
Really? Data is data.....
Is Mr Johnson trying to avoid coming up for Burns Nicht?
- Cases: 30% of population were vaccinated 7 days ago, so immune from 10 -> 35%. R suppression up to (0.55/0.9) = 40%.
- R now (at 15% suppression) = 0.84 -> expected R around 0.6 (or a case reduction of UP TO 60% reduction per week) in a fortnight. (plus restriction led falls, minus any lack of efficacy). This would be an R noticeably below anything we've seen elsewhere.
- Hospitalisations: 22% of the population were immunised 2 weeks ago. That's approximately completing the over 70s and some over 60s on a UK like programme. Let's say 50% fewer hospitalisations relative to the number of cases the week before (based on memory prior work here)
- Deaths: 16% of the population were immunised 3 weeks ago. Probably covers the over 80s and many over 70s. Deaths up to 60% down from expected on relative to the number of cases a fortnight before.
Even if the numbers are a bit rough here, the conclusion is we should be seeing something quite marked in Israel in a fortnight's time.
Data are data.
How many doses we given to over 65s?
This is another hill I am prepared to die on.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular
So far there has been one Scottish independence referendum, seven years ago.
“We don’t really have sufficient data on efficacy for older age groups. Only 8% were in that group”
“Only 8%?”
“Yes. So we’re only approving it for the under 65s at the moment.”
.... and then someone goes away with the 8% figure and assumes it was the efficacy for the older group.
If there is any truth in this we are in serious trouble in the UK
So Peston to lead with as soon as he can.
If it is true, Boris should delive the news next to a mirror so no one notices.
The rest of the UK deserves some consideration, some peace and some stability in all of this. If Scotland stays part of the set up then we are unlikely to get it.
If the EU have had a collective hissy fit and this is the result - then that is really, really worrying
If they only approve for under 65s all anyone will hear is 'not safe', unfortunately.
Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.
As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions.
Otherwise, generally continue to use the plural: Data are still being collected.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca#clinical-particulars
Data is a collection of facts and figures. A book is a collection of words on pages.
Do you say a book is about something? Or that a book are about something?
You're defending Latin grammar, not "the English language".
I can relate to Axel Hefer so much.
https://twitter.com/TomHourigan/status/1353800383391531010
And while the political pressures will - I'm sure - be great, I would hope that they will resist the urge.
The reality is though the choices are limited. Sanofi and Merck have had major setbacks on their vaccine plans, Merck may well be dropping their plans entirely, so it shows the complexity
It also doesn't suggest you are doing things right when your largest EU economy appears to be making its own deals with Pfizer.
The 8% idea appears odd, you'd have to wonder if the UK would have touched it and you'd have to assume some kind of over 65 cohort in the trials. The EMA however does seem painfully slow in getting AZ approved given its cornerstone status so either there is wrangling or they do see some notable limitations. Those who have mentioned the possible repercussions regarding anti vaxxers are right but even if the story is somewhat not as dramatic as the headline the media will lap it up as well.
To get even 50% efficacy with two shots would do. To get the rate down of serious illness by a large degree would do but it appears that science isn't really science, its an interpretation and far too many people are enjoying their time in the sun with the outer reaches of such interpretation.
Yes you Independent Sage. Annoyed that other scientists are getting more coverage? Vanity project.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1353805493039370241
I await the ban hammer, sorry, interdictum de malleo.
https://twitter.com/TommyCorbyn/status/1353104752847020041
A word is singular, even if it has multiple characters.
A sentence is singular, even if it has many words.
A paragraph is singular, even if it has many sentences, with many words.
A page is singular, even if it has many paragraphs.
A book is singular, even if it has many pages.
A library is singular, even if it has many books.
Data is singular, even if the collection of facts and figures within the data is vast.
Which obviously should read, "The Yanks are well known for REVIVING the English language" . . .
Although I will say it’s worse with Welsh.
Are we bound to follow the rules of our parents? Are there any german rules we should be following that we are not at present?