Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Best of three. What of a fresh Scottish independence referendum? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,168
edited January 2021 in General
imageBest of three. What of a fresh Scottish independence referendum? – politicalbetting.com

As Sting once sang, you can’t control an independent heart.  Boris Johnson, however, seems set to try.  In the face of opinion polls showing that the SNP are heading for an overall majority at Holyrood with a mandate for a fresh referendum on Scottish independence, he is giving every impression of a man who intends not to agree to one being held.  

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Very interesting Alastair.
  • Consecutive threads on Scottish independence?

    Ambassador Mike you spoil us.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    Second like Trump
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,933
    Thanks again for the headers, Alastair.
  • We have been discussing this all day

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,765
    FPT:
    DougSeal said:

    This

    There are many more in the disaster column than the UK if it's true.
    We would be worst affected.

    We have given a vaccine in Care homes that could be useless


    We are also the only nation not following Pfizer 3 weeks 2nd dose guidance aren't we

    We’ll hear from the company soon enough I am sure. If untrue they cannot let this go unchallenged.
    If this German stuff is true then surely it means the AZ vaccine is even more efficacious for the under 70s?

    Looking at their paper, the age results aren't shown as far as I can see, but they do tell you that ≈ 10% of the 2nd trance of UK trial were 70+. This cohort had 18 cases out of a N of 3744. But if the vaccine is all but useless for the over 70s then maybe most of those cases were of that older age group and the efficiency (which is give as 73% for this cohort) is much higher for the middle aged?

    Or am I being stupid as it late at night?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    We have been discussing this all day

    Some of us have been out doing our exercise
  • glwglw Posts: 9,908
    I hope the Germans get on the phone to India sharpish, as the SII are producing a billion doses of the vaccine.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,933

    We have been discussing this all day

    Get used to it. ;)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    BREAKING: Italy’s prime minister Giuseppe Conte will resign on Tuesday in a tactical move aimed at maximising his chances of leading a new government.
  • IanB2 said:

    We have been discussing this all day

    Some of us have been out doing our exercise
    It started before 8.00 this morning
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126

    Consecutive threads on Scottish independence?

    Ambassador Mike you spoil us.

    I'm not sure that was the intention.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,693

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    Handelsratner won't live this down if they are wrong.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    We have been discussing this all day

    I'm almost glad for the vaccine scare story. Bit of variety.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,933

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    Handelsratner won't live this down if they are wrong.
    AZN have strongly denied it already.
  • Consecutive threads on Scottish independence?

    Ambassador Mike you spoil us.

    Its going to be the main political story of 2021 and 2022 - and potentially 2023 and 2024.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,865
    glw said:

    I hope the Germans get on the phone to India sharpish, as the SII are producing a billion doses of the vaccine.

    Germany aren't eligible for it! The SII have presold their allocation to lower income countries and the Indian government.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288
    Envelope calculation on the German data:

    - 0.4% of the population were vaccinated, as of 3 weeks ago.
    - 100000 detected cases last week.
    - So, on average, if the vaccinated were a representative sample and vaccination had no effect, a baseline of 400 patients would have tasted positive in the last week.
    - AZN is a subsample of that (what order did the EU approve in again?))
    - The over 65s are a subsample of that
    - This isn't polling -and the sample won't be representative. The nature of the sample could raise (student nurses, city dwellers, high incidence areas), or lower (older people) the baseline expectation considerably.
    - Adjusting the baseline right is key.
    - If 350 student Krankenschwestern from. Berlin got infected, that's a great result for vaccination. If 200 old people got infected, not so.much.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,673

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    "No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)"

    Is there any data from the Ph3 trials on the number of cases in the 70+ cohort (vaccinated versus control group)?

    PS I agree the German report seems to be rubbish.
  • RobD said:

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    Handelsratner won't live this down if they are wrong.
    AZN have strongly denied it already.
    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1353817762372710401?s=19
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,005
    FPT:

    From the UK Government paper on it:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/949772/UKPAR_COVID_19_Vaccine_AstraZeneca_05.01.2021.pdf

    P33
    “ There is limited information available on efficacy in participants aged 65 or over, although there is nothing to suggest lack of protection. In this subpopulation, there were only two COVID-19 cases in the primary analysis. When considering all cases from dose 1, there were 2 cases on AZD1222 compared to 8 on control (VE=76%), although this result was associated with a wide confidence interval.”

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the 95% confidence interval ranged as far down as 8% for that. Someone who can do the stats off the top of their head can tell us.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,933

    RobD said:

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    Handelsratner won't live this down if they are wrong.
    AZN have strongly denied it already.
    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1353817762372710401?s=19
    Doesn't rule out 9%, I suppose.
  • Re: the AZ vaccine & its efficacy (or lack thereof) for geezers, one key question is, how long will it take before we find out if what the truth actually is, or is not?

    Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors, their grannies, etc., etc.

    But just how long will - and should - it take to get to the bottom of this?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,765

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    "No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)"

    Is there any data from the Ph3 trials on the number of cases in the 70+ cohort (vaccinated versus control group)?

    PS I agree the German report seems to be rubbish.
    Not in the Lancet paper. That I can see anyway. The results are given for each cohort as a group in terms of cases vs cases in the respective control group.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    On topic, Kettle in the Guardian:

    One minister tells me the plan is for Johnson to announce that he considers the UK’s existing constitutional architecture is not working. Whether these issues are to be remitted to a constitutional commission of some kind, perhaps similar to the one proposed by the Labour leader Keir Starmer in December, will soon be made clear. These discussions are described as “very live”. But the target audience is clear: the voters whom ministers describe as the majority of the electorate in all four parts of the UK who do not have a passion for breaking up Britain.

    Until recently, the Johnson government’s policy towards all this was to just say no. But that is changing now. There is panic and realism in the new approach. The SNP is formidable but not unbeatable. Divisions between reformists and ultras – between Sturgeon and Alex Salmond and their respective backers – may change the mood. If Sturgeon or any successor is pushed into calling an illegal referendum, it would trigger a widespread boycott that could open the way for different politics.

    It is an enormous risk, and time is running out fast.
  • IanB2 said:

    Second like Trump

    No! You're third, like Jo Jorgensen.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,639
    Remember: AZN has been approved by MHRA. I would take more note of MHRA than some unsubstantiated source.

    Keep calm all.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,005

    FPT:

    From the UK Government paper on it:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/949772/UKPAR_COVID_19_Vaccine_AstraZeneca_05.01.2021.pdf

    P33
    “ There is limited information available on efficacy in participants aged 65 or over, although there is nothing to suggest lack of protection. In this subpopulation, there were only two COVID-19 cases in the primary analysis. When considering all cases from dose 1, there were 2 cases on AZD1222 compared to 8 on control (VE=76%), although this result was associated with a wide confidence interval.”

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the 95% confidence interval ranged as far down as 8% for that. Someone who can do the stats off the top of their head can tell us.

    And accordingly the hypothesis that someone who didn’t understand confidence intervals or stats ran off to shout bollocks off the record has to be quite high.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    Handelsratner won't live this down if they are wrong.
    Handelsplatt? At least they've given us another expressive compound.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,429

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    If your interpretation is true, then people in Germany need to lose their jobs, if not worse
  • The Australian referendum was on same sex marriage. It was not on the continued existence of the state. I would expect that we would end up at the Supreme Court who would confirm a non-agreed referendum to be non-binding, and we end up with Catalonia.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited January 2021

    IanB2 said:

    Second like Trump

    No! You're third, like Jo Jorgensen.
    No! I am second, since the winner can only stand on one podium at a time ;)

    Spreading your opening comment across several posts is poor show, in any case.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,028
    God. No. Please. I can literally repeat the arguments on here word for word between HUFYD and co, including MalcGs excellent insults.
  • Re: the AZ vaccine & its efficacy (or lack thereof) for geezers, one key question is, how long will it take before we find out if what the truth actually is, or is not?

    Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors, their grannies, etc., etc.

    But just how long will - and should - it take to get to the bottom of this?

    End of February to middle of March we should have serious data. Early data a bit sooner.

    It takes about 2 weeks for vaccination to provide some immunity, then about another fortnight to three weeks to go from getting infected to hospitalisation. So if you're hospitalised within a month of being vaccinated then your vaccination probably came too late to help you. If you're hospitalised over a month after the vaccination then your vaccination didn't prevent it - which we should expect for some cases.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    Pro_Rata said:

    Envelope calculation on the German data:

    - 0.4% of the population were vaccinated, as of 3 weeks ago.
    - 100000 detected cases last week.
    - So, on average, if the vaccinated were a representative sample and vaccination had no effect, a baseline of 400 patients would have tasted positive in the last week.
    - AZN is a subsample of that (what order did the EU approve in again?))
    - The over 65s are a subsample of that
    - This isn't polling -and the sample won't be representative. The nature of the sample could raise (student nurses, city dwellers, high incidence areas), or lower (older people) the baseline expectation considerably.
    - Adjusting the baseline right is key.
    - If 350 student Krankenschwestern from. Berlin got infected, that's a great result for vaccination. If 200 old people got infected, not so.much.

    I am confused. The Germans haven't given any AZN vaccine yet as it hasn't been approved in the EU yet, surely.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    God. No. Please. I can literally repeat the arguments on here word for word between HUFYD and co, including MalcGs excellent insults.

    The tide is clearly going out on HY’s just say no.
  • IanB2 said:

    On topic, Kettle in the Guardian:

    One minister tells me the plan is for Johnson to announce that he considers the UK’s existing constitutional architecture is not working. Whether these issues are to be remitted to a constitutional commission of some kind, perhaps similar to the one proposed by the Labour leader Keir Starmer in December, will soon be made clear. These discussions are described as “very live”. But the target audience is clear: the voters whom ministers describe as the majority of the electorate in all four parts of the UK who do not have a passion for breaking up Britain.

    Until recently, the Johnson government’s policy towards all this was to just say no. But that is changing now. There is panic and realism in the new approach. The SNP is formidable but not unbeatable. Divisions between reformists and ultras – between Sturgeon and Alex Salmond and their respective backers – may change the mood. If Sturgeon or any successor is pushed into calling an illegal referendum, it would trigger a widespread boycott that could open the way for different politics.

    It is an enormous risk, and time is running out fast.

    But that cannot be right, HYUFD assures us Boris will not discuss the subject

    But in realpolitik if Boris and Starmer can come together on this even better
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,477
    edited January 2021
    IanB2 said:

    On topic, Kettle in the Guardian:

    One minister tells me the plan is for Johnson to announce that he considers the UK’s existing constitutional architecture is not working. Whether these issues are to be remitted to a constitutional commission of some kind, perhaps similar to the one proposed by the Labour leader Keir Starmer in December, will soon be made clear. These discussions are described as “very live”. But the target audience is clear: the voters whom ministers describe as the majority of the electorate in all four parts of the UK who do not have a passion for breaking up Britain.

    Until recently, the Johnson government’s policy towards all this was to just say no. But that is changing now. There is panic and realism in the new approach. The SNP is formidable but not unbeatable. Divisions between reformists and ultras – between Sturgeon and Alex Salmond and their respective backers – may change the mood. If Sturgeon or any successor is pushed into calling an illegal referendum, it would trigger a widespread boycott that could open the way for different politics.

    It is an enormous risk, and time is running out fast.

    Ignoring the SNP's referendum wheeze is a bit like lockdown - one can help rid the world of a 'orrible disease just by staying at home.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 831
    IanB2 said:

    BREAKING: Italy’s prime minister Giuseppe Conte will resign on Tuesday in a tactical move aimed at maximising his chances of leading a new government.

    His middle name is Baldriccio.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    Re: the AZ vaccine & its efficacy (or lack thereof) for geezers, one key question is, how long will it take before we find out if what the truth actually is, or is not?

    Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors, their grannies, etc., etc.

    But just how long will - and should - it take to get to the bottom of this?

    It would help if the German source published the data that led to the incredibly specific figure of 8%. Then at least we can understand it. As it is we can’t know because they won’t tell us. AZ have published their data and stand by it, if one is going to challenge it, one could at least have the courtesy of coming on the record to explain why.
  • Before we all lose our minds because of a report in the German press, it's important to be clear about what we do know.

    1) AstraZeneca's Phase 2 trials included 200 people over 70, and found their immune response to the vaccine was the same as in younger groups.

    2) Phase III trials did include 444 people over 70, although they made up just 4% of the study participants.

    @TheLancet
    concluded: "from the interim analysis of these trials, we cannot yet infer efficacy in older adults”

    3) There is another Phase III trial ongoing in the US, but that is not expected to publish results until April.

    By then, the UK will likely have data from the real world application of the vaccine.

    https://twitter.com/mattuthompson
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Thanks Alastair for a very thought provoking piece. I disagree with your view that, if the UK Government does nothing, it looks timid. In fact, it's probably it's best policy. Say "there's no point dealing with you because whatever we negotiate, you will change the rules to suit your own view" and let the Scottish Government sort a referendum. Encourage Unionists to boycott it. Then have the position of the SNP having to come to your door asking for negotiation because, if it doesn't, most fund managers will be leaving Edinburgh ASAP.

    I'm sure this whole renewed talk from Sturgeon has to do with the dispute over Salmond, and what she did / not do rightfully.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,710
    Gaussian said:

    IanB2 said:

    BREAKING: Italy’s prime minister Giuseppe Conte will resign on Tuesday in a tactical move aimed at maximising his chances of leading a new government.

    His middle name is Baldriccio.
    It sounds a cunning plan...
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    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.
    We’re talking at cross purposes

    An advisory referendum is fine (subject to ultra vires) I don’t see any issue with it. It’s not binding and has no authority to require Westminster to engage. There is a clear process set out in law for referenda on these topics and the law should be followed
    There is not a clear process set out in law as referenda have been dealt with very ad hoc, we haven't stabilised to frequently using referenda on an ongoing permanent basis - although Tony Blair and David Cameron tried their best to make it so, it seems.

    The Scottish Government are seeking to pass legislation to call a referendum as is arguably their right. If they do, and if it is fine to do so, then it is a legally authorised referendum just as the UK's 2016 referendum was legally authorised.
    It’s a reserved matter
    Maybe, maybe not. Could end up before the Supreme Court to decide and nobody can say for certain what they would say.

    Referenda are not reserved explicitly.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited January 2021
    TimT said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Envelope calculation on the German data:

    - 0.4% of the population were vaccinated, as of 3 weeks ago.
    - 100000 detected cases last week.
    - So, on average, if the vaccinated were a representative sample and vaccination had no effect, a baseline of 400 patients would have tasted positive in the last week.
    - AZN is a subsample of that (what order did the EU approve in again?))
    - The over 65s are a subsample of that
    - This isn't polling -and the sample won't be representative. The nature of the sample could raise (student nurses, city dwellers, high incidence areas), or lower (older people) the baseline expectation considerably.
    - Adjusting the baseline right is key.
    - If 350 student Krankenschwestern from. Berlin got infected, that's a great result for vaccination. If 200 old people got infected, not so.much.

    I am confused. The Germans haven't given any AZN vaccine yet as it hasn't been approved in the EU yet, surely.
    No wonder it isn’t working for them
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288
    Pro_Rata said:

    Envelope calculation on the German data:

    - 0.4% of the population were vaccinated, as of 3 weeks ago.
    - 100000 detected cases last week.
    - So, on average, if the vaccinated were a representative sample and vaccination had no effect, a baseline of 400 patients would have tasted positive in the last week.
    - AZN is a subsample of that (what order did the EU approve in again?))
    - The over 65s are a subsample of that
    - This isn't polling -and the sample won't be representative. The nature of the sample could raise (student nurses, city dwellers, high incidence areas), or lower (older people) the baseline expectation considerably.
    - Adjusting the baseline right is key.
    - If 350 student Krankenschwestern from. Berlin got infected, that's a great result for vaccination. If 200 old people got infected, not so.much.

    I think my central point, Mr. Shanty, is just how at the margins and early any German data on their vaccination program must, of necessity be. If we subsample over 65s (lower infection rates than population) and AZN, we are surely getting down to under 100 expected cases and poor representativeness to boot. The scientists looking at this will know anything they are seeing is as bad as a Scottish subsample on Buckie.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,933

    Before we all lose our minds because of a report in the German press, it's important to be clear about what we do know.

    1) AstraZeneca's Phase 2 trials included 200 people over 70, and found their immune response to the vaccine was the same as in younger groups.

    2) Phase III trials did include 444 people over 70, although they made up just 4% of the study participants.

    @TheLancet
    concluded: "from the interim analysis of these trials, we cannot yet infer efficacy in older adults”

    3) There is another Phase III trial ongoing in the US, but that is not expected to publish results until April.

    By then, the UK will likely have data from the real world application of the vaccine.

    https://twitter.com/mattuthompson

    Have we all been fooled by a story in the German equivalent of The Star?
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    Re: the AZ vaccine & its efficacy (or lack thereof) for geezers, one key question is, how long will it take before we find out if what the truth actually is, or is not?

    Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors, their grannies, etc., etc.

    But just how long will - and should - it take to get to the bottom of this?

    End of February to middle of March we should have serious data. Early data a bit sooner.

    It takes about 2 weeks for vaccination to provide some immunity, then about another fortnight to three weeks to go from getting infected to hospitalisation. So if you're hospitalised within a month of being vaccinated then your vaccination probably came too late to help you. If you're hospitalised over a month after the vaccination then your vaccination didn't prevent it - which we should expect for some cases.
    Arguably it won't be until a month after the second dose that anything definitive can be said about AZ efficacy - so May really.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,865
    DougSeal said:

    Re: the AZ vaccine & its efficacy (or lack thereof) for geezers, one key question is, how long will it take before we find out if what the truth actually is, or is not?

    Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors, their grannies, etc., etc.

    But just how long will - and should - it take to get to the bottom of this?

    It would help if the German source published the data that led to the incredibly specific figure of 8%. Then at least we can understand it. As it is we can’t know because they won’t tell us. AZ have published their data and stand by it, if one is going to challenge it, one could at least have the courtesy of coming on the record to explain why.
    Yes, and by the end of next week the EMA is likely to approve it without any restrictions so all this has done is give anti-vaxxers a whole bunch of fake news to spread on Facebook and WhatsApp about all vaccines and coverups of real data etc...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,477

    RobD said:

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    Handelsratner won't live this down if they are wrong.
    AZN have strongly denied it already.
    Who on earth thought it was a good idea to publish unverified stories about vaccine effectiveness at this critical stage in rollout.

    If the EU are upset - fine. They messed up procurement. But the anger from them today - and this weird story - is just stupid. Dangerous. Reckless.

    To be fair to the EU (the Commission), the leaks coming out of Germany are from national politicians are they not? They should be seen very seperately to the Commission's statements earlier in the day.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,429
    This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.

    The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,

    Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.

    Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
  • On google news I can only find one link to an AZN 8% story, and it's already been taken down. What is joe.co.uk anyway?
    https://www.joe.co.uk/news/astrazeneca-vaccine-efficacy-8-percent-262368
  • On google news I can only find one link to an AZN 8% story, and it's already been taken down. What is joe.co.uk anyway?
    https://www.joe.co.uk/news/astrazeneca-vaccine-efficacy-8-percent-262368

    They often have funny sports stories that go viral. I don't know if they're serious or satire.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,429
    MaxPB said:

    DougSeal said:

    Re: the AZ vaccine & its efficacy (or lack thereof) for geezers, one key question is, how long will it take before we find out if what the truth actually is, or is not?

    Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors, their grannies, etc., etc.

    But just how long will - and should - it take to get to the bottom of this?

    It would help if the German source published the data that led to the incredibly specific figure of 8%. Then at least we can understand it. As it is we can’t know because they won’t tell us. AZ have published their data and stand by it, if one is going to challenge it, one could at least have the courtesy of coming on the record to explain why.
    Yes, and by the end of next week the EMA is likely to approve it without any restrictions so all this has done is give anti-vaxxers a whole bunch of fake news to spread on Facebook and WhatsApp about all vaccines and coverups of real data etc...
    If the German rumour is bollocks Astra Zeneca should sue German media and politicians until they don't have a steiner to piss in. Anti-vaxxing fake newsery (IF this is what it is) is hideously stupid and dangerous.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 831
    RobD said:

    Before we all lose our minds because of a report in the German press, it's important to be clear about what we do know.

    1) AstraZeneca's Phase 2 trials included 200 people over 70, and found their immune response to the vaccine was the same as in younger groups.

    2) Phase III trials did include 444 people over 70, although they made up just 4% of the study participants.

    @TheLancet
    concluded: "from the interim analysis of these trials, we cannot yet infer efficacy in older adults”

    3) There is another Phase III trial ongoing in the US, but that is not expected to publish results until April.

    By then, the UK will likely have data from the real world application of the vaccine.

    https://twitter.com/mattuthompson

    Have we all been fooled by a story in the German equivalent of The Star?
    Handelsblatt is the equivalent of the Financial Times. They've clearly fucked up though.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    MaxPB said:

    DougSeal said:

    Re: the AZ vaccine & its efficacy (or lack thereof) for geezers, one key question is, how long will it take before we find out if what the truth actually is, or is not?

    Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors, their grannies, etc., etc.

    But just how long will - and should - it take to get to the bottom of this?

    It would help if the German source published the data that led to the incredibly specific figure of 8%. Then at least we can understand it. As it is we can’t know because they won’t tell us. AZ have published their data and stand by it, if one is going to challenge it, one could at least have the courtesy of coming on the record to explain why.
    Yes, and by the end of next week the EMA is likely to approve it without any restrictions so all this has done is give anti-vaxxers a whole bunch of fake news to spread on Facebook and WhatsApp about all vaccines and coverups of real data etc...
    Maybe the journalist is at the back of the queue for getting the vaccine, and thought this would be a way to get it sooner?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,216
    edited January 2021

    We have been discussing this all day

    We’re here all year.
    And we’ve got the rest of the generation beyond that. :smile:
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    edited January 2021

    Re: the AZ vaccine & its efficacy (or lack thereof) for geezers, one key question is, how long will it take before we find out if what the truth actually is, or is not?

    Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors, their grannies, etc., etc.

    But just how long will - and should - it take to get to the bottom of this?

    Going back to the paper, none of the group who received the vaccine were hospitalised more than 21 days after receipt of the first dose, and if I'm reading the summary correctly the mean efficacy across all trials was 64.1% after one dose, and 70.4% after two, with efficacy being defined as protection against symptomatic infection.

    The NHS rollout of the vaccine began 21 days ago. So one would imagine that, if it's anything like useless, evidence from illness in those already vaccinated should make this apparent within the next few weeks. We have to assume that instances of vaccinated individuals ending up in hospital are being looked out for very carefully.
  • @Charles FPT
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    ClippP said:

    Charles said:

    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.
    Sure. I don’t believe that properly authorised referenda can be “advisory”. But a Scottish poll without a Section 30 notice isn’t a properly authorised referendum in that sense

    (Yes, Philip_Thompson yada yada they can hold an opinion vote if they want)
    The 2016 EU referendum was advisory.

    Was it not properly authorised as a result?

    A potential 2022 Scottish Independence referendum would surely be just as legally authorised as the 2016 EU referendum one?
    The Westminster parliament passed a law authorising the Brexit vote.

    In 2014 they agreed a section 30 notice with the Scottish government meaning that the referendum was properly authorised

    If the Scottish government holds a referendum without a section 30 notice then it may be legal (I’ve never said it isn’t) but it has no force.

    If Holyrood passes a law authorising a referenda then how is that any difference to Westminster passing a law authorising Brexit, if it has the authority to do so?

    Yes it may have no force, but so too did the 2016 referendum. In this country referenda don't typically have force by directly changing the law.
  • At least the grown ups are getting on with the job at hand....

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1353818633093472257?s=19
  • Leon said:

    This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.

    The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,

    Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.

    Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.

    People said the same when Alastair correctly called the Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation crisis.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,028

    RobD said:

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    Handelsratner won't live this down if they are wrong.
    AZN have strongly denied it already.
    Who on earth thought it was a good idea to publish unverified stories about vaccine effectiveness at this critical stage in rollout.

    If the EU are upset - fine. They messed up procurement. But the anger from them today - and this weird story - is just stupid. Dangerous. Reckless.

    To be fair to the EU (the Commission), the leaks coming out of Germany are from national politicians are they not? They should be seen very seperately to the Commission's statements earlier in the day.
    Probably unconnected, true, but poor timing in general.

    For me, the fact a reckless article spreads so quickly is reason enough to support some form of regulation / law around misinformation and social media
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,477
    MrEd said:

    Thanks Alastair for a very thought provoking piece. I disagree with your view that, if the UK Government does nothing, it looks timid. In fact, it's probably it's best policy. Say "there's no point dealing with you because whatever we negotiate, you will change the rules to suit your own view" and let the Scottish Government sort a referendum. Encourage Unionists to boycott it. Then have the position of the SNP having to come to your door asking for negotiation because, if it doesn't, most fund managers will be leaving Edinburgh ASAP.

    I'm sure this whole renewed talk from Sturgeon has to do with the dispute over Salmond, and what she did / not do rightfully.

    Yep. Far from looking timid, it's the only thing to do, because the wildcat scheme *depends* on the UK Government opposing this tooth and nail and getting into a big legal battle, with 'Boris vs. Sturgeon', which (Kle4 said rightly) Sturgeon could not lose - regardless of the legal outcome. Leaving them to get on with the white elephant with an air of faint bemusement deflates the whole thing.
  • This is nonsense.
    The government has a majority of 80.
    It can do what it likes.
    Which is why it keeps abstaining on votes where it gets challenged to defend its policies and its authority.

    Boris is Frit. And when it comes to politics, Boris is Shit. Whatever the issue you can pretty much guarantee that whatever he says his government will quickly do the opposite.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    RobD said:

    Before we all lose our minds because of a report in the German press, it's important to be clear about what we do know.

    1) AstraZeneca's Phase 2 trials included 200 people over 70, and found their immune response to the vaccine was the same as in younger groups.

    2) Phase III trials did include 444 people over 70, although they made up just 4% of the study participants.

    @TheLancet
    concluded: "from the interim analysis of these trials, we cannot yet infer efficacy in older adults”

    3) There is another Phase III trial ongoing in the US, but that is not expected to publish results until April.

    By then, the UK will likely have data from the real world application of the vaccine.

    https://twitter.com/mattuthompson

    Have we all been fooled by a story in the German equivalent of The Star?
    Daily Sport!!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,673

    RobD said:

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    Handelsratner won't live this down if they are wrong.
    AZN have strongly denied it already.
    Who on earth thought it was a good idea to publish unverified stories about vaccine effectiveness at this critical stage in rollout.

    If the EU are upset - fine. They messed up procurement. But the anger from them today - and this weird story - is just stupid. Dangerous. Reckless.

    To be fair to the EU (the Commission), the leaks coming out of Germany are from national politicians are they not? They should be seen very seperately to the Commission's statements earlier in the day.
    Very true.

    Some on here too quick to pretend everything from the other side of the Channel must be the fault of the EU.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288
    TimT said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Envelope calculation on the German data:

    - 0.4% of the population were vaccinated, as of 3 weeks ago.
    - 100000 detected cases last week.
    - So, on average, if the vaccinated were a representative sample and vaccination had no effect, a baseline of 400 patients would have tasted positive in the last week.
    - AZN is a subsample of that (what order did the EU approve in again?))
    - The over 65s are a subsample of that
    - This isn't polling -and the sample won't be representative. The nature of the sample could raise (student nurses, city dwellers, high incidence areas), or lower (older people) the baseline expectation considerably.
    - Adjusting the baseline right is key.
    - If 350 student Krankenschwestern from. Berlin got infected, that's a great result for vaccination. If 200 old people got infected, not so.much.

    I am confused. The Germans haven't given any AZN vaccine yet as it hasn't been approved in the EU yet, surely.
    OK, that makes it even earlier in the German analysis :) Divide by zero.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,865
    TimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    DougSeal said:

    Re: the AZ vaccine & its efficacy (or lack thereof) for geezers, one key question is, how long will it take before we find out if what the truth actually is, or is not?

    Reckon that experts must be working at (dare I say) warp speed to answer this, urged on by politicos, pundits, investors, their grannies, etc., etc.

    But just how long will - and should - it take to get to the bottom of this?

    It would help if the German source published the data that led to the incredibly specific figure of 8%. Then at least we can understand it. As it is we can’t know because they won’t tell us. AZ have published their data and stand by it, if one is going to challenge it, one could at least have the courtesy of coming on the record to explain why.
    Yes, and by the end of next week the EMA is likely to approve it without any restrictions so all this has done is give anti-vaxxers a whole bunch of fake news to spread on Facebook and WhatsApp about all vaccines and coverups of real data etc...
    Maybe the journalist is at the back of the queue for getting the vaccine, and thought this would be a way to get it sooner?
    If only it was that. It's much more likely that a pissed of German politician getting barracked by the public on the awful roll out saw all of today's news and then leaked something they'd seen on a "well it's shit anyway" basis.
  • Gaussian said:

    RobD said:

    Before we all lose our minds because of a report in the German press, it's important to be clear about what we do know.

    1) AstraZeneca's Phase 2 trials included 200 people over 70, and found their immune response to the vaccine was the same as in younger groups.

    2) Phase III trials did include 444 people over 70, although they made up just 4% of the study participants.

    @TheLancet
    concluded: "from the interim analysis of these trials, we cannot yet infer efficacy in older adults”

    3) There is another Phase III trial ongoing in the US, but that is not expected to publish results until April.

    By then, the UK will likely have data from the real world application of the vaccine.

    https://twitter.com/mattuthompson

    Have we all been fooled by a story in the German equivalent of The Star?
    Handelsblatt is the equivalent of the Financial Times. They've clearly fucked up though.
    Translates as Trade Sheet as far as I can tell.

    One of the deutsche tweeter twats called the vaccine the AstraZenecaMurks, and it seems Murks means botch-up

    So HandelsMurks for me
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    In a post earlier today I expressed the view that the question of whether it is competent to pass a bill regulating a referendum is not the same as the Scottish government using public funds to finance such a referendum and I therefore agree with Alastair's point about that. I am not so sure, however, that proceeding to hold a referendum without legislation will be as easy as he seems to think.

    But the law and the politics of this are different. In my view the politics of refusing the Scottish people a referendum that a majority has voted for (if this happens) are horrendous and very possibly fatal to the Union.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,673
    RobD said:

    Before we all lose our minds because of a report in the German press, it's important to be clear about what we do know.

    1) AstraZeneca's Phase 2 trials included 200 people over 70, and found their immune response to the vaccine was the same as in younger groups.

    2) Phase III trials did include 444 people over 70, although they made up just 4% of the study participants.

    @TheLancet
    concluded: "from the interim analysis of these trials, we cannot yet infer efficacy in older adults”

    3) There is another Phase III trial ongoing in the US, but that is not expected to publish results until April.

    By then, the UK will likely have data from the real world application of the vaccine.

    https://twitter.com/mattuthompson

    Have we all been fooled by a story in the German equivalent of The Star?

    Nope. Some of us weren't fooled by it. :wink:
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533

    MrEd said:

    Thanks Alastair for a very thought provoking piece. I disagree with your view that, if the UK Government does nothing, it looks timid. In fact, it's probably it's best policy. Say "there's no point dealing with you because whatever we negotiate, you will change the rules to suit your own view" and let the Scottish Government sort a referendum. Encourage Unionists to boycott it. Then have the position of the SNP having to come to your door asking for negotiation because, if it doesn't, most fund managers will be leaving Edinburgh ASAP.

    I'm sure this whole renewed talk from Sturgeon has to do with the dispute over Salmond, and what she did / not do rightfully.

    Yep. Far from looking timid, it's the only thing to do, because the wildcat scheme *depends* on the UK Government opposing this tooth and nail and getting into a big legal battle, with 'Boris vs. Sturgeon', which (Kle4 said rightly) Sturgeon could not lose - regardless of the legal outcome. Leaving them to get on with the white elephant with an air of faint bemusement deflates the whole thing.
    I agree with Mr Ed (not something I say every day). Just express polite interest - the Scots want to consult people on independence? Fine, but it's not binding, and is unlikely to pass 50% of the electorate.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,477

    RobD said:

    Argh, new threads! FPT:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.

    FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.

    Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.

    No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
    So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?

    We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
    You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'

    It is just not acceptable
    Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.

    Breathe, then think about this.

    It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.

    No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)

    There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.

    There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.

    The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
    Handelsratner won't live this down if they are wrong.
    AZN have strongly denied it already.
    Who on earth thought it was a good idea to publish unverified stories about vaccine effectiveness at this critical stage in rollout.

    If the EU are upset - fine. They messed up procurement. But the anger from them today - and this weird story - is just stupid. Dangerous. Reckless.

    To be fair to the EU (the Commission), the leaks coming out of Germany are from national politicians are they not? They should be seen very seperately to the Commission's statements earlier in the day.
    Probably unconnected, true, but poor timing in general.

    For me, the fact a reckless article spreads so quickly is reason enough to support some form of regulation / law around misinformation and social media
    I think almost the opposite - let's have it out, and prove it wrong, and show everyone where the misreading of the data lies. You can't really keep anything in the bag these days. Driving this stuff underground fuels conspiracy theories I think.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,933

    RobD said:

    Before we all lose our minds because of a report in the German press, it's important to be clear about what we do know.

    1) AstraZeneca's Phase 2 trials included 200 people over 70, and found their immune response to the vaccine was the same as in younger groups.

    2) Phase III trials did include 444 people over 70, although they made up just 4% of the study participants.

    @TheLancet
    concluded: "from the interim analysis of these trials, we cannot yet infer efficacy in older adults”

    3) There is another Phase III trial ongoing in the US, but that is not expected to publish results until April.

    By then, the UK will likely have data from the real world application of the vaccine.

    https://twitter.com/mattuthompson

    Have we all been fooled by a story in the German equivalent of The Star?

    Nope. Some of us weren't fooled by it. :wink:
    Fair play to you, sir. ;)
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288
    Gaussian said:

    IanB2 said:

    BREAKING: Italy’s prime minister Giuseppe Conte will resign on Tuesday in a tactical move aimed at maximising his chances of leading a new government.

    His middle name is Baldriccio.
    TL:DR, Renzi is still being a cock, then?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    When you think of the months’ of work and ceaseless advocacy that HY has put into his multilevel flexible strategic response to the threat of Scottish independence, it seems insulting that even a clown has worked out that it is too simplistic?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,710

    RobD said:

    Before we all lose our minds because of a report in the German press, it's important to be clear about what we do know.

    1) AstraZeneca's Phase 2 trials included 200 people over 70, and found their immune response to the vaccine was the same as in younger groups.

    2) Phase III trials did include 444 people over 70, although they made up just 4% of the study participants.

    @TheLancet
    concluded: "from the interim analysis of these trials, we cannot yet infer efficacy in older adults”

    3) There is another Phase III trial ongoing in the US, but that is not expected to publish results until April.

    By then, the UK will likely have data from the real world application of the vaccine.

    https://twitter.com/mattuthompson

    Have we all been fooled by a story in the German equivalent of The Star?
    Daily Sport!!
    Would that be under the other story about German vaccines found on the moon ?
  • What else are on the agenda tonight?

    (Since everyone ignored it on the last thread's discussion of data! :) )
  • Leon said:

    This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.

    The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,

    Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.

    Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.

    What the heck is a "binding" referendum on a subject like this?

    The EU Referendum wasn't "binding".

    The question before SCOTUK will surely be whether they can lawfully hold a referendum - since under previous SCOTUK ruling all referenda are advisory, that element is moot.

    If the SCOTUK rules in favour of the Scottish Parliament that they can legally hold a referendum then that is a game changer. It would be better not to go to Court than to lose that Court case because then the SCOTUK has essentially ruled it is a legal vote, not a wildcat one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,111
    edited January 2021
    No, no, no.

    If the UK government agrees another legal referendum now not only is there a large risk of losing Scotland, though no certainty with 49% Yes including DKs on the latest poll but also they would be showing no willingness to stand up to the SNP who even if they lose indyref2 will demand indyref3 the next day exactly as many nationalists refused to accept the result of the 2014 referendum. The 2014 referendum must be respected as a once in a generation vote.

    Even if a referendum was held by Sturgeon without UK government approval Boris could ignore it exactly as Rajoy ignored the unconstitutional 2017 Catalan referendum even though 92% of Catalan voters voted for independence on a 43% turnout, Unionists boycotting the poll.

    That was the right decision by the Spanish PM to uphold the Spanish constitution and the supremacy of the Spanish government and 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 597
    The wildcat 2014 Catalonia Indepndence Referendum ultimately set nationalism back there despite a heavy handed response from Madrid. I don't see how a Scottish equivalent (ignored by Westminster and boycotted by Unionists) would be any more successful for the SNP.

    I'm not so sure Boris will turn down the request flat but might just string out negotiations on a referendum in the hope the nationalist tide will start to ebb post-pandemic as the economy recovers and Brexit related disruption is ironed out.

    I know Ian Blackford isn't exactly popular in Westminster but does the permanent outrage go down well in Scotland?
  • HYUFD said:

    No, no, no.

    If the UK government agrees another referendum now not only is there a large risk of losing Scotland, though no certainty with 49% Yes including DKs on the latest poll but also they would be showing no willingness to stand up for the SNP who even if they lose indyref2 will demand indyref3 the next day exactly as many nationalists refused to accept the result on the 2014 referendum.

    Even if a referendum was held by Sturgeon without UK government approval Boris could ignore it exactly as Rajoy ignored the unconstitutional 2017 Catalan referendum even though 92% of Catalan voters voted for independence on a 43% turnout.

    That was the right decision by the Spanish PM to uphold the Spanish constitution and the supremacy of the Spanish government and 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain

    If the Scottish voters don't want to be in the Union anymore then why would you want them to be prisoners trapped in the UK with no legal method of voting to leave?

    What does that achieve? Is the union worth more to you than the fact people don't want it? Isn't it better for the union to survive because people want it to survive?
  • What else are on the agenda tonight?

    (Since everyone ignored it on the last thread's discussion of data! :) )

    Why are labour not doing better

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1353809414571089920?s=19
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    What else are on the agenda tonight?

    (Since everyone ignored it on the last thread's discussion of data! :) )

    Have we discussed the reopening of the schools recently?
  • HYUFD said:

    No, no, no.

    If the UK government agrees another legal referendum now not only is there a large risk of losing Scotland, though no certainty with 49% Yes including DKs on the latest poll but also they would be showing no willingness to stand up to the SNP who even if they lose indyref2 will demand indyref3 the next day exactly as many nationalists refused to accept the result of the 2014 referendum. The 2014 referendum must be respected as a once in a generation vote.

    Even if a referendum was held by Sturgeon without UK government approval Boris could ignore it exactly as Rajoy ignored the unconstitutional 2017 Catalan referendum even though 92% of Catalan voters voted for independence on a 43% turnout.

    That was the right decision by the Spanish PM to uphold the Spanish constitution and the supremacy of the Spanish government and 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain

    You are going to have to adjust your story as this goes forward and yes, sometimes you are wrong
  • What else are on the agenda tonight?

    (Since everyone ignored it on the last thread's discussion of data! :) )

    Why are labour not doing better

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1353809414571089920?s=19
    It must be because Boris is shit at politics, as I think someone postulated earlier.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,710

    What else are on the agenda tonight?

    (Since everyone ignored it on the last thread's discussion of data! :) )

    Why are labour not doing better

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1353809414571089920?s=19
    Because Starmer keeps agreeing with the Tories, including a joint approach to the SNP. Why vote for a different version of the same?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,111

    Leon said:

    This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.

    The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,

    Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.

    Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.

    People said the same when Alastair correctly called the Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation crisis.
    Boris did not have a majority at Westminster then and was impotent as PM, he now has a majority of 80 in the Commons and is master of all he surveys based on the principle of our constitution that Crown in Parliament is sovereign
  • FPT:

    From the UK Government paper on it:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/949772/UKPAR_COVID_19_Vaccine_AstraZeneca_05.01.2021.pdf

    P33
    “ There is limited information available on efficacy in participants aged 65 or over, although there is nothing to suggest lack of protection. In this subpopulation, there were only two COVID-19 cases in the primary analysis. When considering all cases from dose 1, there were 2 cases on AZD1222 compared to 8 on control (VE=76%), although this result was associated with a wide confidence interval.”

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the 95% confidence interval ranged as far down as 8% for that. Someone who can do the stats off the top of their head can tell us.

    Actually I scribbled down some numbers, though I don't have the *exact* population sizes for the control and vaccinated (I was assuming that they are equal, which gives a central VE=75%). I couldn't get 8% for the lower end of any confidence interval, although there are lots of ways of calculating confidence intervals for VE, and they might have been making any number of dubious normal approximations or centering it weirdly or something.

    In fact I think the lower end for that hypothetical calculation is about -25% effective (yes, negative effectiveness) which goes to show that a sample of 10 cases is really very few! (Just done on the back of an envelope, don't take it seriously.)

    --AS
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Amazing how illuminating it can be actually to read a bit of legislation, rather than just pontificating about it.

    It is all very specifically about Acts. what if the Parliament makes a resolution to have a referendum, rather than passing an Act saying there is to be one?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,111
    edited January 2021
    Foxy said:

    What else are on the agenda tonight?

    (Since everyone ignored it on the last thread's discussion of data! :) )

    Why are labour not doing better

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1353809414571089920?s=19
    Because Starmer keeps agreeing with the Tories, including a joint approach to the SNP. Why vote for a different version of the same?
    He is still up 5% on Labour's 2019 rating, the LDs are down 3% on their 2019 rating despite opposing Boris' deal.

    The main movement from 2019 to now remains LD to Starmer Labour with the Tories only down 1% on what they got at the last GE.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,429

    MrEd said:

    Thanks Alastair for a very thought provoking piece. I disagree with your view that, if the UK Government does nothing, it looks timid. In fact, it's probably it's best policy. Say "there's no point dealing with you because whatever we negotiate, you will change the rules to suit your own view" and let the Scottish Government sort a referendum. Encourage Unionists to boycott it. Then have the position of the SNP having to come to your door asking for negotiation because, if it doesn't, most fund managers will be leaving Edinburgh ASAP.

    I'm sure this whole renewed talk from Sturgeon has to do with the dispute over Salmond, and what she did / not do rightfully.

    Yep. Far from looking timid, it's the only thing to do, because the wildcat scheme *depends* on the UK Government opposing this tooth and nail and getting into a big legal battle, with 'Boris vs. Sturgeon', which (Kle4 said rightly) Sturgeon could not lose - regardless of the legal outcome. Leaving them to get on with the white elephant with an air of faint bemusement deflates the whole thing.
    I agree with Mr Ed (not something I say every day). Just express polite interest - the Scots want to consult people on independence? Fine, but it's not binding, and is unlikely to pass 50% of the electorate.
    There will be a Royal Commission on Indy, Explore all the choices. Report back. Tell the Scots. Federal UK, status quo, indy outside EU or within, dissolve devo. Your call.

    This will take a few years, and take the subject off the boil. It is, also, by the by, surely the sensible thing to do. If there is one thing everyone has learned from Brexit, it is that a wildly important referendum with a simple Yes/No on a hugely complex subject is not always wise, and if it is done, it needs to be done with the public as informed as possible as to what will happen after.

    I voted Leave. I am still, just about, persuaded that I made the right choice, but it is exceptionally marginal. If I had properly thought about the Irish border problem I might have changed my mind, it just never occurred to me (as it barely occurred to others, to be fair).

    Scots and Brits need to be better educated next time. And there should be a next time, Scots deserve another vote once they see how Brexit has worked, or not. Late 2020s is when I expect it to happen, and when it should happen.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,127
    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Thanks Alastair for a very thought provoking piece. I disagree with your view that, if the UK Government does nothing, it looks timid. In fact, it's probably it's best policy. Say "there's no point dealing with you because whatever we negotiate, you will change the rules to suit your own view" and let the Scottish Government sort a referendum. Encourage Unionists to boycott it. Then have the position of the SNP having to come to your door asking for negotiation because, if it doesn't, most fund managers will be leaving Edinburgh ASAP.

    I'm sure this whole renewed talk from Sturgeon has to do with the dispute over Salmond, and what she did / not do rightfully.

    Yep. Far from looking timid, it's the only thing to do, because the wildcat scheme *depends* on the UK Government opposing this tooth and nail and getting into a big legal battle, with 'Boris vs. Sturgeon', which (Kle4 said rightly) Sturgeon could not lose - regardless of the legal outcome. Leaving them to get on with the white elephant with an air of faint bemusement deflates the whole thing.
    I agree with Mr Ed (not something I say every day). Just express polite interest - the Scots want to consult people on independence? Fine, but it's not binding, and is unlikely to pass 50% of the electorate.
    There will be a Royal Commission on Indy, Explore all the choices. Report back. Tell the Scots. Federal UK, status quo, indy outside EU or within, dissolve devo. Your call.

    This will take a few years, and take the subject off the boil. It is, also, by the by, surely the sensible thing to do. If there is one thing everyone has learned from Brexit, it is that a wildly important referendum with a simple Yes/No on a hugely complex subject is not always wise, and if it is done, it needs to be done with the public as informed as possible as to what will happen after.

    I voted Leave. I am still, just about, persuaded that I made the right choice, but it is exceptionally marginal. If I had properly thought about the Irish border problem I might have changed my mind, it just never occurred to me (as it barely occurred to others, to be fair).

    Scots and Brits need to be better educated next time. And there should be a next time, Scots deserve another vote once they see how Brexit has worked, or not. Late 2020s is when I expect it to happen, and when it should happen.
    How are you finding exporting the flint dildos?

    Despite some breathless reporting in the press, all my D2C customers in the EU are merrily paying the TVA on arrival, just as they would books from the US/Canada.
  • MrEd said:

    Thanks Alastair for a very thought provoking piece. I disagree with your view that, if the UK Government does nothing, it looks timid. In fact, it's probably it's best policy. Say "there's no point dealing with you because whatever we negotiate, you will change the rules to suit your own view" and let the Scottish Government sort a referendum. Encourage Unionists to boycott it. Then have the position of the SNP having to come to your door asking for negotiation because, if it doesn't, most fund managers will be leaving Edinburgh ASAP.

    I'm sure this whole renewed talk from Sturgeon has to do with the dispute over Salmond, and what she did / not do rightfully.

    Yep. Far from looking timid, it's the only thing to do, because the wildcat scheme *depends* on the UK Government opposing this tooth and nail and getting into a big legal battle, with 'Boris vs. Sturgeon', which (Kle4 said rightly) Sturgeon could not lose - regardless of the legal outcome. Leaving them to get on with the white elephant with an air of faint bemusement deflates the whole thing.
    You mean, better strategy than sending ModProd, Beefeaters and Bullingtonians northward to crush incipient rebellion?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,477

    Leon said:

    This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.

    The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,

    Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.

    Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.

    What the heck is a "binding" referendum on a subject like this?

    The EU Referendum wasn't "binding".

    The question before SCOTUK will surely be whether they can lawfully hold a referendum - since under previous SCOTUK ruling all referenda are advisory, that element is moot.

    If the SCOTUK rules in favour of the Scottish Parliament that they can legally hold a referendum then that is a game changer. It would be better not to go to Court than to lose that Court case because then the SCOTUK has essentially ruled it is a legal vote, not a wildcat one.
    It seems odd to me that a fervent supporter of Brexit wants to take away an opportunity for the people of Scotland to experience the outplaying of some of its benefits, as opposed to just the immediate-term fissures.

    Nats desperately want Indyref 2 now, I think because they lack confidence in the accuracy of their dire predictions, and they calculate that there will never be an angrier time than now, or a better opponent than Boris. I am less certain of why you want it now so desperately, you who believes that Brexit is going to be a success. I think five or six years is plenty of time to gage that. Within the context of a 300 year Union, it doesn't seem much? Your haste seems not to be about giving the Scottish people choice, but booting them out the door as quickly as possible. Why? Do you just plain not like them?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    The issue of a second Scottish independence referendum is a political issue not a legal one.
This discussion has been closed.