The EU is clearly deeply pissed off with AstraZeneca. They want to know why EU orders are not being fulfilled when others, to the UK, for example, are, especially in view of the fact that the EU helped to finance the development and production of the vaccine.
Why would AZ be shipping product to places yet to approve use, when they have customers who can put hundreds of thousands of doses in arms today and tomorrow?
On Sunday I knew only one couple who had had the inoculation here in Edinburgh. Today I know of half a dozen who have had it or have appointments for it. All in the over 80s bracket. The roll-out is proceeding apace and everyone knows who secured the vaccines which don't have a tartan label.
The NHS?
I don't give much credit to the government or the NHS for us being ahead of the curve when it comes to vaccination. I think if anyone is to take credit for our good fortune it is the folk at the outstandingly good MHRA and the scientists in Oxford and Astra Zeneca.
I think the NHS deserves a lot of credit for the rollout, it's been very well done and the government definitely deserves credit for being a fast mover on purchasing rather than haggling ovr price.
F1: Betfair slightly shifting towards expecting Hamilton to run. If you backed Bottas for the title at silly odds the 14.5 lay may be a good hedging option.
I see the non-COVID deaths in the week ending 15 Jan were just over 3,000 below the five year average. What's interesting is that deaths involving Influenza and Pneumonia were at 5,273 this week (compared with a Week 2 average of 3,427). That's pretty remarkable given how much COVID was spreading given that we had over 7,000 COVID deaths (i.e. 40% of all deaths that week). The ONS do note that a death can be counted as both flu and COVID.
Since the last week of October, non-COVID deaths are just over 10,000 below the five year average (i.e. 8% down on normal). It might be that the flu death stats are unreliable at the moment, but I reckon a fair amount of the non-COVID decrease is due to earlier COVID deaths.
If this is the case then heads need to roll in the German government over this leak and at the newspaper for printing a claim from an unattributed source without actually seeing the data for themselves.
You may remember that yesterday I expressed surprise at the death rate among teaching staff being similar to the community outside, despite the infection rate being triple.
Turns out there are two reasons for this figure.
One is that on the whole teachers are younger than the population at large (something to do with 40% of staff leaving the profession within five years of qualifying).
The other is that the government deliberately excluded all staff over the age of 64, which meant they excluded half of all deaths among school staff, but compared the rate to the population as a whole.
Which is extraordinary. Not only is that blatantly criminal - even by the dreadful standards set by Williamson and Gibb - but were they really so dumb as to think nobody would notice?
I can only hope that the judge gives them all life sentences.
That TES piece is based on an Eoin Clarke special (renamed himself to 'Toryfibs' after the Eoin Clarke 'Blizzard of apologies to people he lied about' incident. I'm still blocked 9 years later.). Handle with extreme care.
The stats are also not DES stats, they are ONS stats. Govt did not exclude older (how many active teachers are there over 64 currently working in schools?) to manipulate figures, ONS did because reliable stats do not exist, and explicitly warn that the over-65 stats are provisional.
And the TES have not claimed a deliberate Govt intention to deceive. Nor has Eoin (used to call himself Dr Eoin when he was publishing 'health stats'; Phd is in Feminist History); he knows he'd be skewered if he did.
ONS compared 20-64 age group secondary school teachers to other professionals in the same age group, because they are the only ones for whom comparable statistics are available. They found teachers to be at a *lower* risk of death from COVID (at a 5% significance) level. Significance vanishes when extended to all education related staff.
ONS keep the over 65s provisional figures separate as it is not clear who they represent - are many retired etc?
Eoin just conflates the whole lot, with no commentary, to excite his followers. IMO TES have been suckered.
If there is one conclusion I'd hazard it is that teachers of working age are safer because vulnerables are shielding, and perhaps can afford to as still paid (?).
Vulnerable teachers are not shielding routinely, and they are not safer. Infection rates are three times the general population.
So the most plausible response to the fact that there are more infections but comparable deaths is that they are (a) younger and (b) figures are being fiddled. Which they clearly are. I would point out that the TES has filtered his data because it included lecturers, and they were interested in teachers.
This is all of piece with the DfE’s attempts through a number of irresponsible sources to claim schools are safe, when they are clearly not. And I might add, having repeatedly lied about the figures in the past (claiming the infection rate was 0.2% when it was 4.2% and the number isolating was up to 23%) they have in any case a massive credibility problem.
And whatever subject Clarke’s PhD was in, he’s still a doctor (unlike almost all GPs) and perfectly entitled to call himself one.
The ONS did find higher risk in secondary school male teachers compared to similar professions.
Some observations on the other things: - compared to general population, it's implied that comparisons were age matched (I'd be very surprised if not, that would be shoddy) but teachers will be better educated and paid more (I know! But compared to the general population it is true, does not mean teachers are not poorly paid for the job) which tends to suggest better outcomes, maybe through being in better health than the general population. - detected cases are high in teachers, but I would imagine that teachers are getting more tests - surely if there's a known case in a school, don't all the teachers get tested? I'd hope so! So more with mild/no symptoms may be getting detected. - including lecturers will skew the rates downwards as lecturers must be a pretty low risk group, little face to face teaching and massive precautions in place for that (also, generally, better paid and even more educated, with likely better health outcomes in general)
So, I'm not saying that teachers are not at higher risk (indeed, in the group in which comparisons were made, the ONS found that they were!) but there are reasons why they may not look higher risk compared to the general population, unless you factor in things like socio-economic status and, obviously, age profiles.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Why experts on Scotch.
Surely you know the difference between Scotch and Scots
On Sunday I knew only one couple who had had the inoculation here in Edinburgh. Today I know of half a dozen who have had it or have appointments for it. All in the over 80s bracket. The roll-out is proceeding apace and everyone knows who secured the vaccines which don't have a tartan label.
Are many of your over 80s acquaintances in douce Edinburgh currently Yes voters ready to be wooed by the BJ vax? If so, that would be quite remarkable, statistically speaking.
They're a mixture of Yes and No afaik. What I can say is that they're all pleased to get it despite general skepticism about BJ.
If I were the publisher of such a respected organ, I think I’d be wanting the editor’s head on a plate this morning. Not necessarily in a metaphorical sense, either!
The sacking of their new data analysis intern Diana Abbotz certainly wouldn't go amiss...
It’s actually quite surprising it’s taken this long for a newspaper to make such a monumental screw-up over the pandemic. I was pretty sure one of the UK papers would have done it by now, but they seem to have mostly swerved it by leading with crappy opinion pieces rather than crappy fact pieces.
AZ's lawyers will be on it. The big corp lawyers in healthcare tend to move slowly, but when they eventually go into bat it can be devastating. I would expect a grovelling retraction in the coming days...
Can’t imagine it would be a nice experience to be on the receiving end of Big Pharma’s lawyers at full stretch, even for a media company used to dealing with lawyers.
AZ would judge this article as being worth the loss of several percentage points from their $135bn market capitalisation, and will be wanting every penny of that - plus a public information campaign, a front page apology and a lot of legal costs. €10bn as the starting point for a legal action, possibly?
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Scotch doesn’t have a vote. Liquids are not considered to have the necessary mental acuity.
I thought we'd scotched the calling the Scots, Scotch? Or has that been scotched?
This polling is also exactly the reason Boris will never allow a legal indyref2 while he is PM as he knows there is a strong chance Scots would vote Yes and he would be forced to resign as PM having broken up the Union.
Starmer however is much more likely to offer Sturgeon a legal indyref2, firstly he may need SNP confidence and supply to become PM after the 2024 general election while Boris has a Tory majority of 80 and can ignore the SNP. Secondly, he is much more likely to win any indyref2 than Boris given Starmer has a very good +16% rating in Scotland compared to Boris' poor -58% rating with Scots.
On Sunday I knew only one couple who had had the inoculation here in Edinburgh. Today I know of half a dozen who have had it or have appointments for it. All in the over 80s bracket. The roll-out is proceeding apace and everyone knows who secured the vaccines which don't have a tartan label.
The NHS?
I don't give much credit to the government or the NHS for us being ahead of the curve when it comes to vaccination. I think if anyone is to take credit for our good fortune it is the folk at the outstandingly good MHRA and the scientists in Oxford and Astra Zeneca.
I think the NHS deserves a lot of credit for the rollout, it's been very well done and the government definitely deserves credit for being a fast mover on purchasing rather than haggling ovr price.
The government deserves credit for
- Pre buying vaccines (before approval) - Buying a range of vaccines. - Going for early delivery, rather than lowest price - Going for the approval-in-parallel model of vaccine approval - Investing a lot of money in production in the UK - Investing in a large supply chain effort - Investing in a varied range of delivery systems. Both large, centralised setups as well as GPs surgeries etc etc
The deserve credit in the sense that there was the option of not doing the above. And a number of countries did not do this.
Let's hope its success in vaccine procurement and distribution goes some way towards making up for its disastrous failures in reducing the spread of the disease!
Good morning. Late to the party today. I strongly suspect that very few people are going to be greatly bothered about politics for now, and, an October poll figure is likely to be still about right. The time will come though when things are either back to something like normal or we've accepted what normal is likely to be for a bit and then the fur will fly.
I've never liked Boris, or seriously considered voting Conservative, and my view is unlikely to change, but I am coming to the view that some of Ms Sturgeons so-far-hidden chickens are coming home to roost and that while Independence will continue to be popular in Scotland her personal ratings are going to take a tumble. That might affect pro-Indy intentions.
Trouble is that there doesn't seem to be anyone about in Scottish politics who can take her place.
Agreed be odd if Alex Salmond saved the Union with his feud with Sturgeon.
The EU is clearly deeply pissed off with AstraZeneca. They want to know why EU orders are not being fulfilled when others, to the UK, for example, are, especially in view of the fact that the EU helped to finance the development and production of the vaccine.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Oh here we go again. Because we are not Scots we have no right to criticise your obsession with hating the English. It is a bit of a challenge if all of us are only allowed to make comment on our immediate area. Are we not able to comment on Trump , Jair Bolsonaro or any of the other nationalist fuckwits in the world? Perhaps you should only comment on activities in your parish council and spare us your "wisdom"? Part of the reason hate filled nationalism has run rampant in Scotland is because people won't call it out for what it is. Your posts that suggest anyone who is not Scottish cannot comment only demonstrate how dumb and vacuous your belief set is.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Case, death and hospitalisation rates in Scotland have been running at half the English levels for some time now. That's a big difference in outcomes. Sturgeon has made some bad mistakes on Covid, as has Johnson, Sturgeon seems capable of learning from her mistakes, while Johnson keeps making the same mistakes again and again, with the result that tens of thousands of people will die, who would otherwise live.
The SNP are perfectly capable of mucking up, but almost no-one so far has made money betting on them doing so.
Excess deaths and death certificate numbers in Scotland appear to be very similar to the English ones though. It is only the 'within 28 days of a test' figure that is lower.
Perhaps the lack of testing skewed the numbers?
A key metric is the positivity rate on tests. As important, in some ways more so, than the actual number of cases identified. A high positivity rate suggests either the epidemic is going out of control or you are not doing your testing properly. The Scottish positivity rate has also been lower than England.
But I agree on your basic point. Case, death and hospitalisation rates aren't necessarily apples to apples between different jurisdictions.
Good morning. Late to the party today. I strongly suspect that very few people are going to be greatly bothered about politics for now, and, an October poll figure is likely to be still about right. The time will come though when things are either back to something like normal or we've accepted what normal is likely to be for a bit and then the fur will fly.
I've never liked Boris, or seriously considered voting Conservative, and my view is unlikely to change, but I am coming to the view that some of Ms Sturgeons so-far-hidden chickens are coming home to roost and that while Independence will continue to be popular in Scotland her personal ratings are going to take a tumble. That might affect pro-Indy intentions.
Trouble is that there doesn't seem to be anyone about in Scottish politics who can take her place.
Agreed be odd if Alex Salmond saved the Union with his feud with Sturgeon.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Why experts on Scotch.
Surely you know the difference between Scotch and Scots
Scotch is an alternative form of the adjective Scottish. As is Scots.
Mr. Dawning, aye, thoroughly demented. Making strategic decisions that may last for decades if not centuries for such a short term 'win' (when Cameron was likely going anyway) is just dumb.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Oh here we go again. Because we are not Scots we have no right to criticise your obsession with hating the English. It is a bit of a challenge if all of us are only allowed to make comment on our immediate area. Are we not able to comment on Trump , Jair Bolsonaro or any of the other nationalist fuckwits in the world? Perhaps you should only comment on activities in your parish council and spare us your "wisdom"? Part of the reason hate filled nationalism has run rampant in Scotland is because people won't call it out for what it is. Your posts that suggest anyone who is not Scottish cannot comment only demonstrate how dumb and vacuous your belief set is.
Can you just try not to be quite so triggered? I’m sure it won’t be doing much for what I suspect is already a gammony demeanour.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Why experts on Scotch.
Surely you know the difference between Scotch and Scots
Scotch is an alternative form of the adjective Scottish. As is Scots.
Yes though I have been told that Scots/Scotch people don't like being referred to as Scotch, so it is "UnionDivie"'s weak attempt at divisive ironic humour. Apparently they don't mind Scotch whiskey being referred to as Scotch. All rather bizarre really.
Allegedly Shagger will announce some kind of constitutional commission. If I thought this (a) would be a genuine attempt at reform and (b) it would actually recommend the remaking of this country to be at least fit for the 21st century and (c) that such recommendations would be implemented, I would back it.
In reality, its *this* government proposing it. A government who tried to go back on its own key manifesto pledge. With a PM and cabinet comprised of sacked liars, demonstrable fools and Theresa "I didn't say that" Coffey. Someone of the stature of Blair or Thatcher proposing it? Perhaps, but neither did.
So its going to come down a battle of wills. If the electorate return an SNP government on a manifesto of holding an independence referendum, then either Westminster says "we don't care what you think" and thus guarantees independence the minute they are removed from power, or as @Philip_Thompson rightly suggests, tackles it head on.
Ironically many of the factual reasons why Sindy is a bad idea can be demonstrated by the real world impacts of Brexit. As we know, real world practicalities aren't why people vote, and the "that could be Bad" arguments can be batted aside as the people saying that were saying the opposite with regards to Brexit.
Philip Thompson is wrong.
In 2017 the Spanish conservative government denied the Catalan nationalist majority government even one independence referendum, 4 years later Catalonia is still part of Spain and support for independence there is falling
Is your ambition to get Scotland to vote to stay in the UK because they want to stay - or to beat them into submission with violence?
The UK is not Spain or China.
The point Philip, is that support for Indy has fallen in Catalonia once the Spanish made it clear it was off the table. People have moved on. It's not inconceivable that the same could happen in Scotland, though it will be handled very differently, of course.
It's pretty obvious that there are talks behind the scene with the likes of Gordon Brown, so it will be a No, plus a constitutional commission to report some years in the future when Boris and Nicola have left the scene. Will it provoke a Caledonian insurgency and riots in Inverness? Don't think so.
This scenario is why the SNP is seething internally and Nicola has had to go along with this scheme which is immensely risky (as she knows only too well).
Is the UK going to do that? Should the UK do that?
Is it worth keeping Scotland in the UK if the only way to do so is to sell your soul and turn violent against your fellow Brits?
In 2017 92% of Catalans voted for independence on a 43% turnout, the Spanish government correctly refused to recognise the result of that unconstitutional referendum, Catalonia is still part of Spain and support for independence there is now falling
How do you define support for independence falling?
February 2020: Yes 44%, No 49%, no lead by 5% March 2020: Yes 44.9%, No 47.1%, no lead by 2.2% Sept 2020: Yes 45.2%, No 46.7%, same pollster as February, no lead reduced to 1.5% Oct 2020: Yes 45.5%, No 46.3%, same pollster as March, no lead reduced to 0.8%
Support for independence has gone up not down over the past 12 months and almost eliminated the No lead.
In 2017 the polling showed most Catalans wanted independence
So? Stuff happened since then in case you didn't notice. The local government was considered by many to have mishandled the topic, the central government was replaced with a more friendly one and initially support for independence fell away. But the issue hasn't gone away.
You may remember that yesterday I expressed surprise at the death rate among teaching staff being similar to the community outside, despite the infection rate being triple.
Turns out there are two reasons for this figure.
One is that on the whole teachers are younger than the population at large (something to do with 40% of staff leaving the profession within five years of qualifying).
The other is that the government deliberately excluded all staff over the age of 64, which meant they excluded half of all deaths among school staff, but compared the rate to the population as a whole.
Which is extraordinary. Not only is that blatantly criminal - even by the dreadful standards set by Williamson and Gibb - but were they really so dumb as to think nobody would notice?
I can only hope that the judge gives them all life sentences.
That TES piece is based on an Eoin Clarke special (renamed himself to 'Toryfibs' after the Eoin Clarke 'Blizzard of apologies to people he lied about' incident. I'm still blocked 9 years later.). Handle with extreme care.
The stats are also not DES stats, they are ONS stats. Govt did not exclude older (how many active teachers are there over 64 currently working in schools?) to manipulate figures, ONS did because reliable stats do not exist, and explicitly warn that the over-65 stats are provisional.
And the TES have not claimed a deliberate Govt intention to deceive. Nor has Eoin (used to call himself Dr Eoin when he was publishing 'health stats'; Phd is in Feminist History); he knows he'd be skewered if he did.
ONS compared 20-64 age group secondary school teachers to other professionals in the same age group, because they are the only ones for whom comparable statistics are available. They found teachers to be at a *lower* risk of death from COVID (at a 5% significance) level. Significance vanishes when extended to all education related staff.
ONS keep the over 65s provisional figures separate as it is not clear who they represent - are many retired etc?
Eoin just conflates the whole lot, with no commentary, to excite his followers. IMO TES have been suckered.
If there is one conclusion I'd hazard it is that teachers of working age are safer because vulnerables are shielding, and perhaps can afford to as still paid (?).
Vulnerable teachers are not shielding routinely, and they are not safer. Infection rates are three times the general population.
So the most plausible response to the fact that there are more infections but comparable deaths is that they are (a) younger and (b) figures are being fiddled. Which they clearly are. I would point out that the TES has filtered his data because it included lecturers, and they were interested in teachers.
This is all of piece with the DfE’s attempts through a number of irresponsible sources to claim schools are safe, when they are clearly not. And I might add, having repeatedly lied about the figures in the past (claiming the infection rate was 0.2% when it was 4.2% and the number isolating was up to 23%) they have in any case a massive credibility problem.
And whatever subject Clarke’s PhD was in, he’s still a doctor (unlike almost all GPs) and perfectly entitled to call himself one.
Do teachers have three times the infection rate? Or are they just being tested more? A teacher friend had it, he only got a headache so only knew about it because of a routine test.
A good question, to which the answer is the data is inconclusive. Unhelpfully, there has been no serious attempt to publish the data collated by the government, possibly because they didn’t like the answer, so there are only indications from Leeds (four times general population) and Birmingham (threefold). They are based on positive test results, but since school staff were not (and still are not, incidentally) being routinely tested it’s difficult to argue they are being tested more than the population at large without knowing the overall testing rate. As against that, from experience I know teachers are encouraged to get tested if they have any symptoms, but that is true for everyone.
What we can say is that (1) schools are an ideal breeding ground for the virus by their design and nature (2) rates of infection do appear to correlate closely with school and university openings, which may be a coincidence but is an unfortunate one and (3) the government have deliberately and repeatedly lied in order to claim schools were safe when they clearly knew perfectly well they weren’t. Now they may have done that for the noblest of reasons - keeping children in school so they can be educated isn’t a bad goal - but the fact remains that by distorting evidence, misleading the public, making policy based on these lies and refusing to admit this even when caught out, they have both failed to deal with the situation, making a serious one into a catastrophic one, and lost all their credibility. Right now I would not believe the DfE, the ONS and their allies if they told me rain was wet. And that isn’t going to change when this is over.
True, they never deserved to be believed. They were always crooks and morons. But it’s hard to see how any sort of solution to the current mess can be found by them, and even when it is there are going to be strikes, boycotts and mass departures from the profession, because why should we put up with being bullied and lied to?
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
I consider myself something of a Scotch expert, but I always seem to prefer it when it's spelt whiskey rather than whisky.
The EU is clearly deeply pissed off with AstraZeneca. They want to know why EU orders are not being fulfilled when others, to the UK, for example, are, especially in view of the fact that the EU helped to finance the development and production of the vaccine.
A friend asks for advice. Her daughter works for the Atomic Energy Authority as a middle-ranking engineer (I don't know more than that) and enjoys it, but is always up for new challenges. She's been offered a job at similar salary for Babcock working on the Dreadnought submarine development. She finds both jobs interesting, and is fairly mobile. Which employer is likely to offer the more secure future?
Individuals tend to make their own security now. I would say the employer that offers her the best training and development that will expand her mind and her CV will be the best option. That way if she is made redundant at any time she is in a better place to bounce back. There are no jobs for life now unless you become a doctor.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Why experts on Scotch.
Surely you know the difference between Scotch and Scots
Scotch is an alternative form of the adjective Scottish. As is Scots.
Yes though I have been told that Scots/Scotch people don't like being referred to as Scotch, so it is "UnionDivie"'s weak attempt at divisive ironic humour. Apparently they don't mind Scotch whiskey being referred to as Scotch. All rather bizarre really.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Why experts on Scotch.
Surely you know the difference between Scotch and Scots
Scotch is an alternative form of the adjective Scottish. As is Scots.
Scotch is a drink in Scotland and I am amazed that Independence supporters keep using it instead of Scots or Scottish
And I have lived in Scotland and been married to a Scot for 57 years so I am familiar with the issue
A friend asks for advice. Her daughter works for the Atomic Energy Authority as a middle-ranking engineer (I don't know more than that) and enjoys it, but is always up for new challenges. She's been offered a job at similar salary for Babcock working on the Dreadnought submarine development. She finds both jobs interesting, and is fairly mobile. Which employer is likely to offer the more secure future?
Individuals tend to make their own security now. I would say the employer that offers her the best training and development that will expand her mind and her CV will be the best option. That way if she is made redundant at any time she is in a better place to bounce back. There are no jobs for life now unless you become a doctor.
- detected cases are high in teachers, but I would imagine that teachers are getting more tests - surely if there's a known case in a school, don't all the teachers get tested? I'd hope so! So more with mild/no symptoms may be getting detected..
The EU is clearly deeply pissed off with AstraZeneca. They want to know why EU orders are not being fulfilled when others, to the UK, for example, are, especially in view of the fact that the EU helped to finance the development and production of the vaccine.
Why would AZ be shipping product to places yet to approve use, when they have customers who can put hundreds of thousands of doses in arms today and tomorrow?
They aren't doing that though, as Charles pointed out last night, our approval of the AZ vaccine is for a specific supply chain based mostly in the UK and doesn't include the Belgian supplier at the heart of this failure. What's happened is that a complicated manufacturing process has had teething problems and the EU are so far behind with their vaccine programme that they can't deal with it as every other country has done in the same situation. Pfizer cut our deliveries and US deliveries in December and January, AZ cut our initial deliveries by 80% too.
It's about being a grown up and dealing with the situation you have not bitching about something that is beyond any reasonable control. Ultimately it's a Belgian subcontractor that has failed to deliver, I'm sure AZ aren't happy about it either because it's bad for their business and reputation too.
As I said yesterday, the answer isn't threatening lawsuits or leaking fake news about the vaccine out of bitterness, it's working with AZ and the subcontractors to help them overcome whatever the bottlenecks are. The EU has 27 nations worth of expertise and money to offer, the answer is always to be constructive in this situation.
Good morning. Late to the party today. I strongly suspect that very few people are going to be greatly bothered about politics for now, and, an October poll figure is likely to be still about right. The time will come though when things are either back to something like normal or we've accepted what normal is likely to be for a bit and then the fur will fly.
I've never liked Boris, or seriously considered voting Conservative, and my view is unlikely to change, but I am coming to the view that some of Ms Sturgeons so-far-hidden chickens are coming home to roost and that while Independence will continue to be popular in Scotland her personal ratings are going to take a tumble. That might affect pro-Indy intentions.
Trouble is that there doesn't seem to be anyone about in Scottish politics who can take her place.
Good point. As Tony Blair remarked the only opposition politician who cut the mustard was Ruth Davidson who had the priceless asset of a sense of humour, as well as being pretty nippy herself when it came to it.
While Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have potential (and are big improvements on their immediate predecessors) it is very early days for them. OTOH they may spring a surprise when the actual campaign starts. Has been known to happen (Clegg - 2010, Corbyn - 2017).
I reckon things will tighten during the campaign in any event, though I'm certainly not predicting anything other than a strong SNP result. The constitutional division is too baked in to allow huge changes.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Why experts on Scotch.
Surely you know the difference between Scotch and Scots
Scotch is an alternative form of the adjective Scottish. As is Scots.
Scotch is a drink in Scotland and I am amazed that Independence supporters keep using it instead of Scots or Scottish
And I have lived in Scotland and been married to a Scot for 57 years so I am familiar with the issue
You carry on being familiar with the issue in North Wales and I’ll do my thing in my bit.
We have 4000 people on ventalitors, glad we didn't join their scheme for those either....when Czechia needed them, they got all of 30 from that scheme. Had to beg, borrow and steal from elsewhere.
We've only got "anonymous sources" and no evidence for something totally implausible but please believe us.
Quite. The AZ vaccine is only 8% efficient - i.e. next to useless - on the people who most need it, the over 65s? There are 2 possibilities. (i) A scandal of monumental proportions. Oxford, AZ, the UK govt and regulator all discredited. Criminal negligence at best. (ii) Complete and utter bollocks. Shoddy and irresponsible journalism in a German newspaper.
I see the non-COVID deaths in the week ending 15 Jan were just over 3,000 below the five year average. What's interesting is that deaths involving Influenza and Pneumonia were at 5,273 this week (compared with a Week 2 average of 3,427). That's pretty remarkable given how much COVID was spreading given that we had over 7,000 COVID deaths (i.e. 40% of all deaths that week). The ONS do note that a death can be counted as both flu and COVID.
Since the last week of October, non-COVID deaths are just over 10,000 below the five year average (i.e. 8% down on normal). It might be that the flu death stats are unreliable at the moment, but I reckon a fair amount of the non-COVID decrease is due to earlier COVID deaths.
I think there is a major typo in the opening statement. It reads:
"The number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 15 January 2021 (Week 2) was 18,042, 291 more deaths than in the previous week (Week 1);"
The EU is clearly deeply pissed off with AstraZeneca. They want to know why EU orders are not being fulfilled when others, to the UK, for example, are, especially in view of the fact that the EU helped to finance the development and production of the vaccine.
A friend asks for advice. Her daughter works for the Atomic Energy Authority as a middle-ranking engineer (I don't know more than that) and enjoys it, but is always up for new challenges. She's been offered a job at similar salary for Babcock working on the Dreadnought submarine development. She finds both jobs interesting, and is fairly mobile. Which employer is likely to offer the more secure future?
Individuals tend to make their own security now. I would say the employer that offers her the best training and development that will expand her mind and her CV will be the best option. That way if she is made redundant at any time she is in a better place to bounce back. There are no jobs for life now unless you become a doctor.
Or a lawyer.
Lawyers regularly lose their jobs. Doctors do not
Leaving aside the notion that numbers of doctors do not lose their jobs who should, you don't see many lawyers Back in the DHSS....
Good morning. Late to the party today. I strongly suspect that very few people are going to be greatly bothered about politics for now, and, an October poll figure is likely to be still about right. The time will come though when things are either back to something like normal or we've accepted what normal is likely to be for a bit and then the fur will fly.
I've never liked Boris, or seriously considered voting Conservative, and my view is unlikely to change, but I am coming to the view that some of Ms Sturgeons so-far-hidden chickens are coming home to roost and that while Independence will continue to be popular in Scotland her personal ratings are going to take a tumble. That might affect pro-Indy intentions.
Trouble is that there doesn't seem to be anyone about in Scottish politics who can take her place.
Good point. As Tony Blair remarked the only opposition politician who cut the mustard was Ruth Davidson who had the priceless asset of a sense of humour, as well as being pretty nippy herself when it came to it.
While Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have potential (and are big improvements on their immediate predecessors) it is very early days for them. OTOH they may spring a surprise when the actual campaign starts. Has been known to happen (Clegg - 2010, Corbyn - 2017).
I reckon things will tighten during the campaign in any event, though I'm certainly not predicting anything other than a strong SNP result. The constitutional division is too baked in to allow huge changes.
Surely the tactics for the Unionist parties in the Scottish election is to ignore the constitutional issues entirely, and go hard on the failings of the current government in education, policing, health etc?
Allegedly Shagger will announce some kind of constitutional commission. If I thought this (a) would be a genuine attempt at reform and (b) it would actually recommend the remaking of this country to be at least fit for the 21st century and (c) that such recommendations would be implemented, I would back it.
In reality, its *this* government proposing it. A government who tried to go back on its own key manifesto pledge. With a PM and cabinet comprised of sacked liars, demonstrable fools and Theresa "I didn't say that" Coffey. Someone of the stature of Blair or Thatcher proposing it? Perhaps, but neither did.
So its going to come down a battle of wills. If the electorate return an SNP government on a manifesto of holding an independence referendum, then either Westminster says "we don't care what you think" and thus guarantees independence the minute they are removed from power, or as @Philip_Thompson rightly suggests, tackles it head on.
Ironically many of the factual reasons why Sindy is a bad idea can be demonstrated by the real world impacts of Brexit. As we know, real world practicalities aren't why people vote, and the "that could be Bad" arguments can be batted aside as the people saying that were saying the opposite with regards to Brexit.
Philip Thompson is wrong.
In 2017 the Spanish conservative government denied the Catalan nationalist majority government even one independence referendum, 4 years later Catalonia is still part of Spain and support for independence there is falling
Is your ambition to get Scotland to vote to stay in the UK because they want to stay - or to beat them into submission with violence?
The UK is not Spain or China.
The point Philip, is that support for Indy has fallen in Catalonia once the Spanish made it clear it was off the table. People have moved on. It's not inconceivable that the same could happen in Scotland, though it will be handled very differently, of course.
It's pretty obvious that there are talks behind the scene with the likes of Gordon Brown, so it will be a No, plus a constitutional commission to report some years in the future when Boris and Nicola have left the scene. Will it provoke a Caledonian insurgency and riots in Inverness? Don't think so.
This scenario is why the SNP is seething internally and Nicola has had to go along with this scheme which is immensely risky (as she knows only too well).
Is the UK going to do that? Should the UK do that?
Is it worth keeping Scotland in the UK if the only way to do so is to sell your soul and turn violent against your fellow Brits?
In 2017 92% of Catalans voted for independence on a 43% turnout, the Spanish government correctly refused to recognise the result of that unconstitutional referendum, Catalonia is still part of Spain and support for independence there is now falling
How do you define support for independence falling?
February 2020: Yes 44%, No 49%, no lead by 5% March 2020: Yes 44.9%, No 47.1%, no lead by 2.2% Sept 2020: Yes 45.2%, No 46.7%, same pollster as February, no lead reduced to 1.5% Oct 2020: Yes 45.5%, No 46.3%, same pollster as March, no lead reduced to 0.8%
Support for independence has gone up not down over the past 12 months and almost eliminated the No lead.
In 2017 the polling showed most Catalans wanted independence
So? Stuff happened since then in case you didn't notice. The local government was considered by many to have mishandled the topic, the central government was replaced with a more friendly one and initially support for independence fell away. But the issue hasn't gone away.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Scotch doesn’t have a vote. Liquids are not considered to have the necessary mental acuity.
I thought we'd scotched the calling the Scots, Scotch? Or has that been scotched?
I have an inkling that this opinion may not be universal... but I would prefer that vaccine doses are used to complete coverage of 70+ year-olds across Europe before under 50s without health conditions are treated in the U.K.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
I consider myself something of a Scotch expert, but I always seem to prefer it when it's spelt whiskey rather than whisky.
You are only a Scotch expert on PB when you’re criticised by the Bell’s end?
Interesting header on the legality of a unilaterally called referendum. I think the legality matters less than it appears at first sight
If Johnson accepts a referendum, it is in effect legal.
If he doesn't accept it, any move towards independence is contested, with all the implications that has. Whether it's a referendum that is being contested or independence itself largely comes to the same thing.
For Johnson the implication of a contested independence is that he is rejecting any self-determination by Scotland. The only way he has of demonstrating Scotland doesn't want to leave the United Kingdom is by allowing the referendum and winning it.
For Sturgeon the implication of a contested independence is that it is likely to invalidate that independence within sections of her own country as well as internationally. It also creates a very messy situation.
There's also the prospect, as others raised here yesterday, that a referendum not authorised by the UK government is boycotted by unionists. Unless the nats get an absolute majority of eligible voters voting for independence in such a referendum, then it won't carry a great deal of weight - even if 90% vote to leave on a 50% turnout that does not (provably) demonstrate the majority will of the Scottish people.
That's why an unauthorised referendum will just be shit-stirring, possibly a useful tool in pushing a yes vote in an authorised referendum a few years later, but not decisive in itself.
I say that as someone who believes that if a Nationalist majority is returned to Holyrood on a ticket of calling a second independence referendum then it should be granted - and Brexit is enough of a material change in circumstances to override the once in a generation idea - even though I personally would like Scotland to stay.
A proportion of the Scottish electorate will think a unilaterally called referendum to be invalid and to be boycotted. But the boycott won't necessarily be big enough to overturn the result when it comes to it.
eg 55% support independence with 85% turnout (matching 2014). 45% oppose and only 30% turn out. This gives you 87% YES on a 60% turnout. You can adjust the percentages but those figures look OK for YES.
You may remember that yesterday I expressed surprise at the death rate among teaching staff being similar to the community outside, despite the infection rate being triple.
Turns out there are two reasons for this figure.
One is that on the whole teachers are younger than the population at large (something to do with 40% of staff leaving the profession within five years of qualifying).
The other is that the government deliberately excluded all staff over the age of 64, which meant they excluded half of all deaths among school staff, but compared the rate to the population as a whole.
Which is extraordinary. Not only is that blatantly criminal - even by the dreadful standards set by Williamson and Gibb - but were they really so dumb as to think nobody would notice?
I can only hope that the judge gives them all life sentences.
That TES piece is based on an Eoin Clarke special (renamed himself to 'Toryfibs' after the Eoin Clarke 'Blizzard of apologies to people he lied about' incident. I'm still blocked 9 years later.). Handle with extreme care.
The stats are also not DES stats, they are ONS stats. Govt did not exclude older (how many active teachers are there over 64 currently working in schools?) to manipulate figures, ONS did because reliable stats do not exist, and explicitly warn that the over-65 stats are provisional.
And the TES have not claimed a deliberate Govt intention to deceive. Nor has Eoin (used to call himself Dr Eoin when he was publishing 'health stats'; Phd is in Feminist History); he knows he'd be skewered if he did.
ONS compared 20-64 age group secondary school teachers to other professionals in the same age group, because they are the only ones for whom comparable statistics are available. They found teachers to be at a *lower* risk of death from COVID (at a 5% significance) level. Significance vanishes when extended to all education related staff.
ONS keep the over 65s provisional figures separate as it is not clear who they represent - are many retired etc?
Eoin just conflates the whole lot, with no commentary, to excite his followers. IMO TES have been suckered.
If there is one conclusion I'd hazard it is that teachers of working age are safer because vulnerables are shielding, and perhaps can afford to as still paid (?).
Vulnerable teachers are not shielding routinely, and they are not safer. Infection rates are three times the general population.
So the most plausible response to the fact that there are more infections but comparable deaths is that they are (a) younger and (b) figures are being fiddled. Which they clearly are. I would point out that the TES has filtered his data because it included lecturers, and they were interested in teachers.
This is all of piece with the DfE’s attempts through a number of irresponsible sources to claim schools are safe, when they are clearly not. And I might add, having repeatedly lied about the figures in the past (claiming the infection rate was 0.2% when it was 4.2% and the number isolating was up to 23%) they have in any case a massive credibility problem.
And whatever subject Clarke’s PhD was in, he’s still a doctor (unlike almost all GPs) and perfectly entitled to call himself one.
The ONS did find higher risk in secondary school male teachers compared to similar professions.
Some observations on the other things: - compared to general population, it's implied that comparisons were age matched (I'd be very surprised if not, that would be shoddy) but teachers will be better educated and paid more (I know! But compared to the general population it is true, does not mean teachers are not poorly paid for the job) which tends to suggest better outcomes, maybe through being in better health than the general population. - detected cases are high in teachers, but I would imagine that teachers are getting more tests - surely if there's a known case in a school, don't all the teachers get tested? I'd hope so! So more with mild/no symptoms may be getting detected. - including lecturers will skew the rates downwards as lecturers must be a pretty low risk group, little face to face teaching and massive precautions in place for that (also, generally, better paid and even more educated, with likely better health outcomes in general)
So, I'm not saying that teachers are not at higher risk (indeed, in the group in which comparisons were made, the ONS found that they were!) but there are reasons why they may not look higher risk compared to the general population, unless you factor in things like socio-economic status and, obviously, age profiles.
Cheers for the reply. I think you have the wrong end of the stick on some of this - not least the manipulation of stats by ONS.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Oh here we go again. Because we are not Scots we have no right to criticise your obsession with hating the English. It is a bit of a challenge if all of us are only allowed to make comment on our immediate area. Are we not able to comment on Trump , Jair Bolsonaro or any of the other nationalist fuckwits in the world? Perhaps you should only comment on activities in your parish council and spare us your "wisdom"? Part of the reason hate filled nationalism has run rampant in Scotland is because people won't call it out for what it is. Your posts that suggest anyone who is not Scottish cannot comment only demonstrate how dumb and vacuous your belief set is.
Can you just try not to be quite so triggered? I’m sure it won’t be doing much for what I suspect is already a gammony demeanour.
Lol, good try! I am not " gammony" , that is a demeanour normally held by angry small minded nationalists like yourself and Malcolm. You should learn to love humanity more rather than trying to pull up a metaphoric drawbridge just north of Hadrian's! Let me let you into a secret: Scots are not superior to English or visa versa. Nationalism is a creed based on ignorance and is personified in your Little Scotland attitude in your posts. I don't get triggered about them, I just find them very sad. Independence for Scotland is even more stupid than Brexit, and you are clearly not stupid so you know this, but your hatred still wants it anyway. Throw away the hate. It will make you feel better
We have 4000 people on ventalitors, glad we didn't join their scheme for those either....when Czechia needed them, they got all of 30 from that scheme. Had to beg, borrow and steal from elsewhere.
Whereas the NHS got 10,000 CPAP machines, inside a month, from a UK factory of a nominally German engineering company.
I see the non-COVID deaths in the week ending 15 Jan were just over 3,000 below the five year average. What's interesting is that deaths involving Influenza and Pneumonia were at 5,273 this week (compared with a Week 2 average of 3,427). That's pretty remarkable given how much COVID was spreading given that we had over 7,000 COVID deaths (i.e. 40% of all deaths that week). The ONS do note that a death can be counted as both flu and COVID.
Since the last week of October, non-COVID deaths are just over 10,000 below the five year average (i.e. 8% down on normal). It might be that the flu death stats are unreliable at the moment, but I reckon a fair amount of the non-COVID decrease is due to earlier COVID deaths.
I did find it surprising how much the breakdown in the "influenza and pneumonia" category was towards pneumonia and away from influenza, to the point that I wonder about the utility of putting them in the same bucket at all. I mean, last year, in England and Wales, between January and August, there were 14,013 deaths in the "influenza and pneumonia" category. Of which 13,619 were pneumonia and 394 were influenza.
Good morning. Late to the party today. I strongly suspect that very few people are going to be greatly bothered about politics for now, and, an October poll figure is likely to be still about right. The time will come though when things are either back to something like normal or we've accepted what normal is likely to be for a bit and then the fur will fly.
I've never liked Boris, or seriously considered voting Conservative, and my view is unlikely to change, but I am coming to the view that some of Ms Sturgeons so-far-hidden chickens are coming home to roost and that while Independence will continue to be popular in Scotland her personal ratings are going to take a tumble. That might affect pro-Indy intentions.
Trouble is that there doesn't seem to be anyone about in Scottish politics who can take her place.
Good point. As Tony Blair remarked the only opposition politician who cut the mustard was Ruth Davidson who had the priceless asset of a sense of humour, as well as being pretty nippy herself when it came to it.
While Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have potential (and are big improvements on their immediate predecessors) it is very early days for them. OTOH they may spring a surprise when the actual campaign starts. Has been known to happen (Clegg - 2010, Corbyn - 2017).
I reckon things will tighten during the campaign in any event, though I'm certainly not predicting anything other than a strong SNP result. The constitutional division is too baked in to allow huge changes.
Anas is a shoo-in is he? Slightly odd to say it’s very early days for someone who’s been an msp since 2010, deputy leader for 3 years and has already run for the leadership (and lost to wossisname). I’m not sure how much unrevealed light is under that bushel.
We have 4000 people on ventalitors, glad we didn't join their scheme for those either....when Czechia needed them, they got all of 30 from that scheme. Had to beg, borrow and steal from elsewhere.
What was interesting in that effort, was that it turned out what we really needed wasn't so much ventilators as O2 providing breathing aids - such as the ones created by the Mercedes F1 team.
Once again - a flexible, multi-stranded set of attempts at a solution beats the monolithic "build me a zillion of this, now" approach.
I have an inkling that this opinion may not be universal... but I would prefer that vaccine doses are used to complete coverage of 70+ year-olds across Europe before under 50s without health conditions are treated in the U.K.
Out of curiosity, how well regarded is Rishi in Scotland? Could he "save the Union" if he were PM at the time of a second referendum?
Positive ratings north of the border last time I saw some figures. Partly due to stuff like furloughing but his personality (modest, serious, etc) goes down much better up here than the likes of Boris or Cameron and all their Etonian connotations. (Worth remembering that the Scots Tories gained 12 seats when T May was PM, despite her bombing everywhere else in UK)
So he has managed to apologize for phone-gate yet?
He hasn't apologised, but he hasn't tried to hide his idiocy (maybe too stupid to even realise his idiocy). He's publicised the fact that he had to ask Downing St to be almost reassured https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1353327760371027970?s=20
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Why experts on Scotch.
Surely you know the difference between Scotch and Scots
Scotch is an alternative form of the adjective Scottish. As is Scots.
Scotch is a drink in Scotland and I am amazed that Independence supporters keep using it instead of Scots or Scottish
And I have lived in Scotland and been married to a Scot for 57 years so I am familiar with the issue
You carry on being familiar with the issue in North Wales and I’ll do my thing in my bit.
You are so bigoted you try to dismiss comments that are shared by a Northern Scot with generations of history living in a Scottish Fishing Community.
Why are you and your like so unpleasant and tetchy to criticism
- detected cases are high in teachers, but I would imagine that teachers are getting more tests - surely if there's a known case in a school, don't all the teachers get tested? I'd hope so! So more with mild/no symptoms may be getting detected..
No.
Oh!
Among teachers I know, that has been the policy for some time (brother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister of a friend) although recommended, not really enforced - sister of a friend was asked by headteacher not to take a test as he couldn't afford to lose any more staff The in-laws are one in a pretty small school and one in a private school, so may not be typical experiences.
Nationalism is a poisonous divisive creed, but you have to admire Sturgeon's political ability, in particular he ability to put a veneer of respectability on said creed. The fact that the Scots think Bozo is hopeless is not surprising, though largely deserved, much of it may be explained by him fitting the stereotype that the English-haters in Scotland (there are a lot of them) think of when they imagine an English Tory.
I personally think devo-max++ is the answer. It does mean that the Scots then cherry pick the bits they like about the Union (mainly the financial support), but it saves a Brexit divorce type calamity where everyone is a loser.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
I consider myself something of a Scotch expert, but I always seem to prefer it when it's spelt whiskey rather than whisky.
You are only a Scotch expert on PB when you’re criticised by the Bell’s end?
We've only got "anonymous sources" and no evidence for something totally implausible but please believe us.
Quite. The AZ vaccine is only 8% efficient - i.e. next to useless - on the people who most need it, the over 65s? There are 2 possibilities. (i) A scandal of monumental proportions. Oxford, AZ, the UK govt and regulator all discredited. Criminal negligence at best. (ii) Complete and utter bollocks. Shoddy and irresponsible journalism in a German newspaper.
Option (ii) has to be the 1.01 fav.
Given how our government leaks like a sieve and people on committees like SAGE love chatting to the media given their new found importance, the chances of some massive cover-up on vaccine data seems about as likely as the US government having had little green men tucked away in Area 51 for the past 50 years.
Interesting header on the legality of a unilaterally called referendum. I think the legality matters less than it appears at first sight
If Johnson accepts a referendum, it is in effect legal.
If he doesn't accept it, any move towards independence is contested, with all the implications that has. Whether it's a referendum that is being contested or independence itself largely comes to the same thing.
For Johnson the implication of a contested independence is that he is rejecting any self-determination by Scotland. The only way he has of demonstrating Scotland doesn't want to leave the United Kingdom is by allowing the referendum and winning it.
For Sturgeon the implication of a contested independence is that it is likely to invalidate that independence within sections of her own country as well as internationally. It also creates a very messy situation.
There's also the prospect, as others raised here yesterday, that a referendum not authorised by the UK government is boycotted by unionists. Unless the nats get an absolute majority of eligible voters voting for independence in such a referendum, then it won't carry a great deal of weight - even if 90% vote to leave on a 50% turnout that does not (provably) demonstrate the majority will of the Scottish people.
That's why an unauthorised referendum will just be shit-stirring, possibly a useful tool in pushing a yes vote in an authorised referendum a few years later, but not decisive in itself.
I say that as someone who believes that if a Nationalist majority is returned to Holyrood on a ticket of calling a second independence referendum then it should be granted - and Brexit is enough of a material change in circumstances to override the once in a generation idea - even though I personally would like Scotland to stay.
A proportion of the Scottish electorate will think a unilaterally called referendum to be invalid and to be boycotted. But the boycott won't necessarily be big enough to overturn the result when it comes to it.
eg 55% support independence with 85% turnout (matching 2014). 45% oppose and only 30% turn out. This gives you 87% YES on a 60% turnout. You can adjust the percentages but those figures look OK for YES.
Thinking further. Nationalists need to get significantly more than 50% support and get 50% to turn out in a unilaterally called referendum. If they get the first they will probably get the second. The Catalans got neither. In any case the YES vote will be sky high.
Good morning. Late to the party today. I strongly suspect that very few people are going to be greatly bothered about politics for now, and, an October poll figure is likely to be still about right. The time will come though when things are either back to something like normal or we've accepted what normal is likely to be for a bit and then the fur will fly.
I've never liked Boris, or seriously considered voting Conservative, and my view is unlikely to change, but I am coming to the view that some of Ms Sturgeons so-far-hidden chickens are coming home to roost and that while Independence will continue to be popular in Scotland her personal ratings are going to take a tumble. That might affect pro-Indy intentions.
Trouble is that there doesn't seem to be anyone about in Scottish politics who can take her place.
Good point. As Tony Blair remarked the only opposition politician who cut the mustard was Ruth Davidson who had the priceless asset of a sense of humour, as well as being pretty nippy herself when it came to it.
While Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have potential (and are big improvements on their immediate predecessors) it is very early days for them. OTOH they may spring a surprise when the actual campaign starts. Has been known to happen (Clegg - 2010, Corbyn - 2017).
I reckon things will tighten during the campaign in any event, though I'm certainly not predicting anything other than a strong SNP result. The constitutional division is too baked in to allow huge changes.
Anas is a shoo-in is he? Slightly odd to say it’s very early days for someone who’s been an msp since 2010, deputy leader for 3 years and has already run for the leadership (and lost to wossisname). I’m not sure how much unrevealed light is under that bushel.
You may be right. But he can't be worse than Leonard, surely. I don't think anyone seriously expects Monica Lennon to win (not even her judging by recent remarks she's made)
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Oh here we go again. Because we are not Scots we have no right to criticise your obsession with hating the English. It is a bit of a challenge if all of us are only allowed to make comment on our immediate area. Are we not able to comment on Trump , Jair Bolsonaro or any of the other nationalist fuckwits in the world? Perhaps you should only comment on activities in your parish council and spare us your "wisdom"? Part of the reason hate filled nationalism has run rampant in Scotland is because people won't call it out for what it is. Your posts that suggest anyone who is not Scottish cannot comment only demonstrate how dumb and vacuous your belief set is.
Can you just try not to be quite so triggered? I’m sure it won’t be doing much for what I suspect is already a gammony demeanour.
Lol, good try! I am not " gammony" , that is a demeanour normally held by angry small minded nationalists like yourself and Malcolm. You should learn to love humanity more rather than trying to pull up a metaphoric drawbridge just north of Hadrian's! Let me let you into a secret: Scots are not superior to English or visa versa. Nationalism is a creed based on ignorance and is personified in your Little Scotland attitude in your posts. I don't get triggered about them, I just find them very sad. Independence for Scotland is even more stupid than Brexit, and you are clearly not stupid so you know this, but your hatred still wants it anyway. Throw away the hate. It will make you feel better
Look, I’ll make a special clarification for you. You definitely shouldn’t be ignored because you’re English, only because you’re boring, repetitive and a bit thick. Fair enough?
The EU is clearly deeply pissed off with AstraZeneca. They want to know why EU orders are not being fulfilled when others, to the UK, for example, are, especially in view of the fact that the EU helped to finance the development and production of the vaccine.
But why are they so exercised about their orders not being fulfilled when they haven’t approved the vaccine?
I’m not bothering about a heat pump for the swimming pool until I can afford one.
And if they are in any way involved in this fake news story at Handelsblatt - even indirectly - it would be immensely damaging to them.
Anyone would think they were being advised by the Department of Education.
The whole issue has already been a disaster for the EU
Whereas good old Blighty has covered itself in glory on everything in recent months and years eh? (chortle)
Of course not, and that is not the point.
For all our faults, we have not been involved in threatening vaccine supplies to the rest of the World at the height of a global pandemic
The EU has not "threatened vaccine supplies". This is the kind of language that escalates problems. So far the EU has suggested it might introduce a new paperwork procedure for exports. It is a little bit of minor posturing to strong-arm AZ. AZ will not want to piss off the EU because it has long term business to consider. The EU is applying legitimate pressure. Everyone needs to step off the chauvinistic bandwagon and get real.
The EU is clearly deeply pissed off with AstraZeneca. They want to know why EU orders are not being fulfilled when others, to the UK, for example, are, especially in view of the fact that the EU helped to finance the development and production of the vaccine.
But why are they so exercised about their orders not being fulfilled when they haven’t approved the vaccine?
I’m not bothering about a heat pump for the swimming pool until I can afford one.
And if they are in any way involved in this fake news story at Handelsblatt - even indirectly - it would be immensely damaging to them.
Anyone would think they were being advised by the Department of Education.
The whole issue has already been a disaster for the EU
Whereas good old Blighty has covered itself in glory on everything in recent months and years eh? (chortle)
Of course not, and that is not the point.
For all our faults, we have not been involved in threatening vaccine supplies to the rest of the World at the height of a global pandemic
The EU has not "threatened vaccine supplies". This is the kind of language that escalates problems. So far the EU has suggested it might introduce a new paperwork procedure for exports. It is a little bit of minor posturing to strong-arm AZ. AZ will not want to piss off the EU because it has long term business to consider. The EU is applying legitimate pressure. Everyone needs to step off the chauvinistic bandwagon and get real.
Even the Guardian are saying they have for God's sake.
Comments
Since the last week of October, non-COVID deaths are just over 10,000 below the five year average (i.e. 8% down on normal). It might be that the flu death stats are unreliable at the moment, but I reckon a fair amount of the non-COVID decrease is due to earlier COVID deaths.
Full report: https://tinyurl.com/yy6ta66a
Some observations on the other things:
- compared to general population, it's implied that comparisons were age matched (I'd be very surprised if not, that would be shoddy) but teachers will be better educated and paid more (I know! But compared to the general population it is true, does not mean teachers are not poorly paid for the job) which tends to suggest better outcomes, maybe through being in better health than the general population.
- detected cases are high in teachers, but I would imagine that teachers are getting more tests - surely if there's a known case in a school, don't all the teachers get tested? I'd hope so! So more with mild/no symptoms may be getting detected.
- including lecturers will skew the rates downwards as lecturers must be a pretty low risk group, little face to face teaching and massive precautions in place for that (also, generally, better paid and even more educated, with likely better health outcomes in general)
So, I'm not saying that teachers are not at higher risk (indeed, in the group in which comparisons were made, the ONS found that they were!) but there are reasons why they may not look higher risk compared to the general population, unless you factor in things like socio-economic status and, obviously, age profiles.
Been falling behind in my attempts to reacquaint myself with German of late...
Surely you know the difference between Scotch and Scots
AZ would judge this article as being worth the loss of several percentage points from their $135bn market capitalisation, and will be wanting every penny of that - plus a public information campaign, a front page apology and a lot of legal costs. €10bn as the starting point for a legal action, possibly?
It is boring now
But I agree on your basic point. Case, death and hospitalisation rates aren't necessarily apples to apples between different jurisdictions.
"and probably also causes some problems politically"
And possibly kills quite a number of people.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1354019140084916225
Basically the EU screwed the pooch big time.
Rising and falling means something. Support for No hit a trough but right now the trend is that support for independence is rising not falling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_movement#Opinion_Polling
Actual facts, not your barefaced false assertions. Your claim was "support for independence there is now falling" - your claim was entirely wrong. ❌
What we can say is that (1) schools are an ideal breeding ground for the virus by their design and nature (2) rates of infection do appear to correlate closely with school and university openings, which may be a coincidence but is an unfortunate one and (3) the government have deliberately and repeatedly lied in order to claim schools were safe when they clearly knew perfectly well they weren’t. Now they may have done that for the noblest of reasons - keeping children in school so they can be educated isn’t a bad goal - but the fact remains that by distorting evidence, misleading the public, making policy based on these lies and refusing to admit this even when caught out, they have both failed to deal with the situation, making a serious one into a catastrophic one, and lost all their credibility. Right now I would not believe the DfE, the ONS and their allies if they told me rain was wet. And that isn’t going to change when this is over.
True, they never deserved to be believed. They were always crooks and morons. But it’s hard to see how any sort of solution to the current mess can be found by them, and even when it is there are going to be strikes, boycotts and mass departures from the profession, because why should we put up with being bullied and lied to?
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1354019151690522624
According to the ONS population data for 2019, there are/were
10,598,509 people in the UK between 56 and 69
66,796,807 was the total for the population according to the same survey
Which give 15.87% of the population.
So the sample in the study was low, if it was 8%, but not ridiculously so.
And I have lived in Scotland and been married to a Scot for 57 years so I am familiar with the issue
It's about being a grown up and dealing with the situation you have not bitching about something that is beyond any reasonable control. Ultimately it's a Belgian subcontractor that has failed to deliver, I'm sure AZ aren't happy about it either because it's bad for their business and reputation too.
As I said yesterday, the answer isn't threatening lawsuits or leaking fake news about the vaccine out of bitterness, it's working with AZ and the subcontractors to help them overcome whatever the bottlenecks are. The EU has 27 nations worth of expertise and money to offer, the answer is always to be constructive in this situation.
While Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have potential (and are big improvements on their immediate predecessors) it is very early days for them. OTOH they may spring a surprise when the actual campaign starts. Has been known to happen (Clegg - 2010, Corbyn - 2017).
I reckon things will tighten during the campaign in any event, though I'm certainly not predicting anything other than a strong SNP result. The constitutional division is too baked in to allow huge changes.
Option (ii) has to be the 1.01 fav.
I think there is a major typo in the opening statement. It reads:
"The number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 15 January 2021 (Week 2) was 18,042, 291 more deaths than in the previous week (Week 1);"
18million more dead?
Why isn't Hugh Pym having a total meltdown?
For all our faults, we have not been involved in threatening vaccine supplies to the rest of the World at the height of a global pandemic
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1354019148578365441?s=20
eg 55% support independence with 85% turnout (matching 2014). 45% oppose and only 30% turn out. This gives you 87% YES on a 60% turnout. You can adjust the percentages but those figures look OK for YES.
Russia doesn't need to operate a disinformation campaign, just amplify journalists reporting of anything sciency.
Let me let you into a secret: Scots are not superior to English or visa versa. Nationalism is a creed based on ignorance and is personified in your Little Scotland attitude in your posts. I don't get triggered about them, I just find them very sad. Independence for Scotland is even more stupid than Brexit, and you are clearly not stupid so you know this, but your hatred still wants it anyway. Throw away the hate. It will make you feel better
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ij3g8kscdeA
I mean, last year, in England and Wales, between January and August, there were 14,013 deaths in the "influenza and pneumonia" category.
Of which 13,619 were pneumonia and 394 were influenza.
Slightly odd to say it’s very early days for someone who’s been an msp since 2010, deputy leader for 3 years and has already run for the leadership (and lost to wossisname). I’m not sure how much unrevealed light is under that bushel.
Once again - a flexible, multi-stranded set of attempts at a solution beats the monolithic "build me a zillion of this, now" approach.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/justice-in-chains/
Partly due to stuff like furloughing but his personality (modest, serious, etc) goes down much better up here than the likes of Boris or Cameron and all their Etonian connotations. (Worth remembering that the Scots Tories gained 12 seats when T May was PM, despite her bombing everywhere else in UK)
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1353327760371027970?s=20
Why are you and your like so unpleasant and tetchy to criticism
Among teachers I know, that has been the policy for some time (brother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister of a friend) although recommended, not really enforced - sister of a friend was asked by headteacher not to take a test as he couldn't afford to lose any more staff
Skandalpresse doesn't quite capture it.
https://twitter.com/4deerhound/status/1353966142956724224?s=20
https://m.interglot.com/en/de/gutter press
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/25/eu-threatens-to-block-covid-vaccine-exports-amid-astrazeneca-shortfall