I can't work out why the government are so keen to keep allowing Instagram models and other assorted influencers travel the world unrestricted.
Because politicians want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Because the media want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Because holiday obsessives want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Not good enough. Not if it means a curtailment of our civil liberties.
For schools to be closed but borders to be open is literally insane. If there were zero other restrictions and the question was borders open or closed and nothing else then fair enough. We're way past that point.
When my children are forbidden from going to school and getting a proper education then I couldn't give the furry crack of a rat's arse about someone's desire to soak in the sun for a week. You want sunshine, my children want to go to school - which is more important?
Straight talk: old people vote Conservative & old people want to have their vaccine and go on holiday and have fun whilst the young are forced to stay indoors & miss out on the best years of their lives to protect them.
This is a generational f.you from the old to the young.
I am neither old, nor young & just so angry about the whole thing. 100,000 dead, probably 10s of 1000s more by the time this is all over & all the time we could have been like NZ, or Taiwan, or any one of a bunch of other nations that did what needed to be done in a thoughtful fashion & ended up with death rates 100x less than ours.
I do not believe it was ever possible for the UK to be like Taiwan or NZ.
East Asia is a rule-obeying society, content to be closely surveilled, and many of the more advanced countries in the region - South Korea, Taiwan - had previous experience with SARS and were physically, technologically and psychologically much better prepared for a repeat.
New Zealand is a faraway archipelago with a sparse population hugely isolated from the rest of the world. and thus easy to quarantine. Australia is nearer but still, it is an empty huge island a long way from other massive populations with few access points.
Almost no European or American country matches these profiles, which is why nearly all are suffering badly (one exception is Norway). Even countries which did well in the first wave are now enduring big death tolls - eg Czechia, Slovenia.. .
Could the UK have done better? For sure. But we were never going to do as well as all that
As a former resident of Taiwan, I can confirm that "rule obeying" does not make the top 5 000 of their many good qualities.
FPT I see a lot of tough words on here from some people about penalising certain types of speech especially related to spreading untruths about vaccinations.
I'm not expressing a view on that, but I'd like to know what the difference is between being an antivaxxer and being a climate change denier. To me they seem directly equivalent, and when I think of it in those terms it points me towards having the same view on what should or shouldn't happen to those people.
And what is the difference between spreading untruths about vaccines, and doing the same around other aspects of the disease? Such as it's prevalence, transmission and even very existence? Also, not stating a view, but that too could be seen as equally harmful. More so if it comes to saying hospitals are empty, it's a hoax and you therefore don't need to take any mitigation. That is killing people.
Yes, but to quote a famous question "What is Truth?"
Is it the truth to say "there is no published data showing how effective thisAZN vaccine is in the over 65's"? Or is it truth to say "there is no published evidence that the Pfizer vaccine is effective with a 12 week gap"?
A lot depends on how keen a person is on following the science, or how far they want to go in anticipating it. Extrapolating that hydroxychloroqine should be widely used, for example, on the basis of some lab work.
Of course, awaiting solid evidence has risks, but so too does acting on flimsy evidence. One of those risks is in the anticipation being wrong. That would be very damaging to the credibility of a vaccine programme.
So it comes down to philosophy. How much do we need to know in order to act? And that in turn comes down to attitude to risk. By the nature of this site, people here are risk takers who act on hunches, but is that a sound philosophy in other situations?
Well, quite. However, as a doctor, you will accept some things are true. The "it's flu, only the old, sick and obese die, and everyone else makes a full recovery, the hospitals are empty" are all untrue. Because of squeamishness, and a reluctance to call out a lie for what it is, we allowed these views to fester and germinate. The recent Newsnight report from the Covid ward would have been much more useful last March for example.
And we have had comments quite like your third sentence tonight.
I am not sure that too much shroud waving is a very effective way of getting the reluctant to take it seriously. It has been shown to be a turn off in areas like smoking for example.
I can't work out what the hell they are thinking....vaccines going well, lockdown seems to be working, Boris has managed to stay on message and not gone all sunny uplands are only weeks away....all they needed to do was copy the Australian scheme...literally copy n paste...no, lets try that airbridge thingie again but with hotels thrown in.
Johnson seems to have a real problem with the idea of almost completely suspending foreign travel, as if it wouldn't be the polite thing to do.
It's all about being loved by everyone.
If Johnson ruins your expensive and exclusive skiing holiday due to 10 days in a Travelodge on your return, you won't like him.
I can't work out what the hell they are thinking....vaccines going well, lockdown seems to be working, Boris has managed to stay on message and not gone all sunny uplands are only weeks away....all they needed to do was copy the Australian scheme...literally copy n paste...no, lets try that airbridge thingie again but with hotels thrown in.
Johnson seems to have a real problem with the idea of almost completely suspending foreign travel, as if it wouldn't be the polite thing to do.
Boris' problem is he is unwilling to be disliked, Priti like Thatcher could not care less if people dislike her if she is doing the right thing
I expected this to be said after Priti had been successful in a Palace Coup, not beforehand.
If you keep it in such position in the first place I expect you'd remember it'd be in plain sight and were presumably happy for people to see it - it's next a sign saying 'think happy things' for crying out loud.
Edit: Unless, this isn't another one of those craft illusions again is it?
@Philip_Thompson "Spreading falsehoods isn't and shouldn't be illegal." As someone pointed out earlier, in this case it is like falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Whether illegal or not it is wrong and deserves opprobrium.
Opprobrium yes. I said its wrong and the journalist who said it should be fired if he won't apologise and retract it and the paper wants to be considered a credible, serious paper.
But imprisonment? That's another matter. That's what I replied to. Sending people to prison for having "wrong" opinions is not OK.
I have retracted that "arrest him" opinion. I was furious when I saw that anti-vaxxers were seizing on his Fake News. Because it really IS dangerous
Just sack him. There HAS to be some price to pay. And add a dash of mockery (tho I see he is getting plenty of this on Twitter, anyway)
I think he should be arrested, certainly if he won't reveal his "multiple sources" without that happening. His actions have undermined huge amounts of sterling work done by vaccine researchers and massive investments from multiple governments (so from billions of taxpayers pockets), and in doing so he's endangered the lives of countless people.
He's just an American commentator reading something on twitter and sticking "BREAKING" in front of his interpretation of it.
Just an American commentator?
Eric Feigl-Ding @DrEricDing Epidemiologist & Health Economist. Senior Fellow, FAS. Fmr 16 yrs @Harvard . Health & justice advocate.
He might of course be wrong but the only political positions I have seen him take were anti Trump
He is well qualified but ill informed on something happening the other side of the world, it is not a rare combination at all.
He unsurprisingly dislikes Trump as he is a Democrat politician who has stood for Congress.
Calling Dr. Ding a "politician" is not quite right, in that he is primarily a medico who took a fling at being a politico, running for Congress on platform that focused on public health and universal health care.
Would also like to point out that, unless you want to sound like a highly partisan GOPer, should refer to "DemocratIC politician".
Realize that UK has "Liberal Democrat Party" but in USA we have "Democratic Party" as the historic, legal and conventional moniker.
Note in Canada they have the "New Democratic Party". NOT the New Democrat Party - which frankly (like Liberal Democrat Party) is ungrammatical IMHO.
The Democratic Party in its current form is actually older than the Republican Party in its current form. Not sure the Republicans deserve the GOP moniker!
The term "Grand Old Party" for the Republicans dates back to 1870s when the "old" party was only two decades old. And as about the same time that Thomas Nast made the elephant THE symbol of the GOP.
Note that the party of Thomas Jefferson (and Aaron Burr) was the Republican Party. Which ended up absorbing most of the remains of its early rival, the Federalist Party. Indeed, it was so successful that in James Madison was re-elected virtually unopposed in 1820 (the "Era of Good Feeling").
However, by 1824, the (first) Republican Party had split apart, with the largest fraction emerging as the Democratic Party under Andrew Jackson, challenged by the new Whig Party (named after the Whigs of England; note that NO American party with any hope of power every called itself Tory).
By the 1850s, a new American Party (aka "No Nothings") had arisen in opposition to mass immigration, esp. by Catholics, at the same time that slavery was smashing the Whigs and sundering the Democrats. The (second) Republican Party emerged from this (dare I say) melting pot, comprised of "Free Soil" Democrats, "Conscience" (as opposed to "Cotton") Whigs and No-Nothings. After the Civil War, the Democratic Party regrouped, dominated by Southern Whites and Northern urbanites & immigrants, but also with significant rural support in the North & West.
Re: the 55-45 initial US Senate vote on proceeding to trial on 2021 article of impeachment, I agree that it appears positive for You-Know-Who.
HOWEVER, note that both the US Senate and House (and also state legislative chambers) frequently have a series of different roll-calls on the same measure, or rather different aspects of the measure, in which there is MUCH apparently switching, dithering & even changing of minds, as lawmakers do the traditional legislative Dance of the Bumblebees, trying to appease various factions, leaders, pundits, supporters, voters.
"Well, maybe I voted against you here - but I votes with you there, and there."
Sounds pathetic but that's politics.
Part of the explanation for fluctuations in US Senate nay votes against confirming various Biden cabinet picks.
It isn't going to happen with Republican Senators voting to impeach Trump. They've looked at what has happened with Cheney and. more to the point, they have been fielding calls saying the House members aren't doing enough to protect Trump.
Look at Paul's interview on CBS and his comments on electoral fraud, and also what Hawley has been saying in the New York Post about censorship and then proposing a counter-motion to refer Democrat Senators to the Ethics Committee. The Republicans have decided to come out fighting on this.
I can't work out what the hell they are thinking....vaccines going well, lockdown seems to be working, Boris has managed to stay on message and not gone all sunny uplands are only weeks away....all they needed to do was copy the Australian scheme...literally copy n paste...no, lets try that airbridge thingie again but with hotels thrown in.
Johnson seems to have a real problem with the idea of almost completely suspending foreign travel, as if it wouldn't be the polite thing to do.
Boris' problem is he is unwilling to be disliked, Priti like Thatcher could not care less if people dislike her if she is doing the right thing
I expected this to be said after Priti had been successful in a Palace Coup, not beforehand.
Poor Rishi doesn't even get a look in anymore.
Guess it depends IF you prefer Mister Yes OR Madam No.
I can't work out why the government are so keen to keep allowing Instagram models and other assorted influencers travel the world unrestricted.
Because politicians want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Because the media want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Because holiday obsessives want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Not good enough. Not if it means a curtailment of our civil liberties.
For schools to be closed but borders to be open is literally insane. If there were zero other restrictions and the question was borders open or closed and nothing else then fair enough. We're way past that point.
When my children are forbidden from going to school and getting a proper education then I couldn't give the furry crack of a rat's arse about someone's desire to soak in the sun for a week. You want sunshine, my children want to go to school - which is more important?
Straight talk: old people vote Conservative & old people want to have their vaccine and go on holiday and have fun whilst the young are forced to stay indoors & miss out on the best years of their lives to protect them.
This is a generational f.you from the old to the young.
I am neither old, nor young & just so angry about the whole thing. 100,000 dead, probably 10s of 1000s more by the time this is all over & all the time we could have been like NZ, or Taiwan, or any one of a bunch of other nations that did what needed to be done in a thoughtful fashion & ended up with death rates 100x less than ours.
I do not believe it was ever possible for the UK to be like Taiwan or NZ.
East Asia is a rule-obeying society, content to be closely surveilled, and many of the more advanced countries in the region - South Korea, Taiwan - had previous experience with SARS and were physically, technologically and psychologically much better prepared for a repeat.
New Zealand is a faraway archipelago with a sparse population hugely isolated from the rest of the world. and thus easy to quarantine. Australia is nearer but still, it is an empty huge island a long way from other massive populations with few access points.
Almost no European or American country matches these profiles, which is why nearly all are suffering badly (one exception is Norway). Even countries which did well in the first wave are now enduring big death tolls - eg Czechia, Slovenia.. .
Could the UK have done better? For sure. But we were never going to do as well as all that
As a former resident of Taiwan, I can confirm that "rule obeying" does not make the top 5 000 of their many good qualities.
They are spirited people, but they will follow rules like mask-wearing. That's what I mean.
If you keep it in such position in the first place I expect you'd remember it'd be in plain sight and were presumably happy for people to see it - it's next a sign saying 'think happy things' for crying out loud.
Edit: Unless, this isn't another one of those craft illusions again is it?
Someone should photoshop that into the mirror of the Boris phone cord photo
I can't work out why the government are so keen to keep allowing Instagram models and other assorted influencers travel the world unrestricted.
Because politicians want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Because the media want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Because holiday obsessives want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Not good enough. Not if it means a curtailment of our civil liberties.
For schools to be closed but borders to be open is literally insane. If there were zero other restrictions and the question was borders open or closed and nothing else then fair enough. We're way past that point.
When my children are forbidden from going to school and getting a proper education then I couldn't give the furry crack of a rat's arse about someone's desire to soak in the sun for a week. You want sunshine, my children want to go to school - which is more important?
Straight talk: old people vote Conservative & old people want to have their vaccine and go on holiday and have fun whilst the young are forced to stay indoors & miss out on the best years of their lives to protect them.
This is a generational f.you from the old to the young.
I am neither old, nor young & just so angry about the whole thing. 100,000 dead, probably 10s of 1000s more by the time this is all over & all the time we could have been like NZ, or Taiwan, or any one of a bunch of other nations that did what needed to be done in a thoughtful fashion & ended up with death rates 100x less than ours.
It's unfortunate that you posted this just after someone else posted a video of the twenty-something social media "influencer" defending her right to be in Dubai.
A cynical thought crossed my mind while walking the dogs. Perhaps the whole EU vaccine export restrictions and the German AZN is crap story are just the EU marketing to anti-vaxxers in the EU. By creating a sense of scarcity about the vaccine, and by blaming outsiders for that scarcity, perhaps their real reason is to get Europeans to demand to have the vaccine NOW.
I can't work out why the government are so keen to keep allowing Instagram models and other assorted influencers travel the world unrestricted.
Because politicians want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Because the media want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Because holiday obsessives want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Not good enough. Not if it means a curtailment of our civil liberties.
For schools to be closed but borders to be open is literally insane. If there were zero other restrictions and the question was borders open or closed and nothing else then fair enough. We're way past that point.
When my children are forbidden from going to school and getting a proper education then I couldn't give the furry crack of a rat's arse about someone's desire to soak in the sun for a week. You want sunshine, my children want to go to school - which is more important?
Straight talk: old people vote Conservative & old people want to have their vaccine and go on holiday and have fun whilst the young are forced to stay indoors & miss out on the best years of their lives to protect them.
This is a generational f.you from the old to the young.
I am neither old, nor young & just so angry about the whole thing. 100,000 dead, probably 10s of 1000s more by the time this is all over & all the time we could have been like NZ, or Taiwan, or any one of a bunch of other nations that did what needed to be done in a thoughtful fashion & ended up with death rates 100x less than ours.
I do not believe it was ever possible for the UK to be like Taiwan or NZ.
East Asia is a rule-obeying society, content to be closely surveilled, and many of the more advanced countries in the region - South Korea, Taiwan - had previous experience with SARS and were physically, technologically and psychologically much better prepared for a repeat.
New Zealand is a faraway archipelago with a sparse population hugely isolated from the rest of the world. and thus easy to quarantine. Australia is nearer but still, it is an empty huge island a long way from other massive populations with few access points.
Almost no European or American country matches these profiles, which is why nearly all are suffering badly (one exception is Norway). Even countries which did well in the first wave are now enduring big death tolls - eg Czechia, Slovenia.. .
Could the UK have done better? For sure. But we were never going to do as well as all that
As a former resident of Taiwan, I can confirm that "rule obeying" does not make the top 5 000 of their many good qualities.
They are spirited people, but they will follow rules like mask-wearing. That's what I mean.
It took Brits a year to wear masks. Tho our stupid scientific advisors didn't help
Initially they thought preventing people from sitting on benches in parks was more important than wearing masks on public transport. That was quite a big mistake.
Re: the 55-45 initial US Senate vote on proceeding to trial on 2021 article of impeachment, I agree that it appears positive for You-Know-Who.
HOWEVER, note that both the US Senate and House (and also state legislative chambers) frequently have a series of different roll-calls on the same measure, or rather different aspects of the measure, in which there is MUCH apparently switching, dithering & even changing of minds, as lawmakers do the traditional legislative Dance of the Bumblebees, trying to appease various factions, leaders, pundits, supporters, voters.
"Well, maybe I voted against you here - but I votes with you there, and there."
Sounds pathetic but that's politics.
Part of the explanation for fluctuations in US Senate nay votes against confirming various Biden cabinet picks.
It seems a bit on the implausible side that they'd attempt to scotch the whole process and then, having failed to, go 'Well, now that I have to vote on the matter of substance, I reluctantly agree conviction is warranted'.
I can't work out what the hell they are thinking....vaccines going well, lockdown seems to be working, Boris has managed to stay on message and not gone all sunny uplands are only weeks away....all they needed to do was copy the Australian scheme...literally copy n paste...no, lets try that airbridge thingie again but with hotels thrown in.
Johnson seems to have a real problem with the idea of almost completely suspending foreign travel, as if it wouldn't be the polite thing to do.
Boris' problem is he is unwilling to be disliked, Priti like Thatcher could not care less if people dislike her if she is doing the right thing
Re: the 55-45 initial US Senate vote on proceeding to trial on 2021 article of impeachment, I agree that it appears positive for You-Know-Who.
HOWEVER, note that both the US Senate and House (and also state legislative chambers) frequently have a series of different roll-calls on the same measure, or rather different aspects of the measure, in which there is MUCH apparently switching, dithering & even changing of minds, as lawmakers do the traditional legislative Dance of the Bumblebees, trying to appease various factions, leaders, pundits, supporters, voters.
"Well, maybe I voted against you here - but I votes with you there, and there."
Sounds pathetic but that's politics.
Part of the explanation for fluctuations in US Senate nay votes against confirming various Biden cabinet picks.
It isn't going to happen with Republican Senators voting to impeach Trump. They've looked at what has happened with Cheney and. more to the point, they have been fielding calls saying the House members aren't doing enough to protect Trump.
Look at Paul's interview on CBS and his comments on electoral fraud, and also what Hawley has been saying in the New York Post about censorship and then proposing a counter-motion to refer Democrat Senators to the Ethics Committee. The Republicans have decided to come out fighting on this.
SOME Republicans. Others are keeping their powder dry. For example, Rob Portman.
Paul & Hawley are perhaps NOT the best examples you might cite for your position, though for somewhat different reasons.
I can't work out why the government are so keen to keep allowing Instagram models and other assorted influencers travel the world unrestricted.
Because politicians want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Because the media want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Because holiday obsessives want to travel the world unrestricted and the government doesn't want to upset them.
Not good enough. Not if it means a curtailment of our civil liberties.
For schools to be closed but borders to be open is literally insane. If there were zero other restrictions and the question was borders open or closed and nothing else then fair enough. We're way past that point.
When my children are forbidden from going to school and getting a proper education then I couldn't give the furry crack of a rat's arse about someone's desire to soak in the sun for a week. You want sunshine, my children want to go to school - which is more important?
Straight talk: old people vote Conservative & old people want to have their vaccine and go on holiday and have fun whilst the young are forced to stay indoors & miss out on the best years of their lives to protect them.
This is a generational f.you from the old to the young.
I am neither old, nor young & just so angry about the whole thing. 100,000 dead, probably 10s of 1000s more by the time this is all over & all the time we could have been like NZ, or Taiwan, or any one of a bunch of other nations that did what needed to be done in a thoughtful fashion & ended up with death rates 100x less than ours.
I do not believe it was ever possible for the UK to be like Taiwan or NZ.
East Asia is a rule-obeying society, content to be closely surveilled, and many of the more advanced countries in the region - South Korea, Taiwan - had previous experience with SARS and were physically, technologically and psychologically much better prepared for a repeat.
New Zealand is a faraway archipelago with a sparse population hugely isolated from the rest of the world. and thus easy to quarantine. Australia is nearer but still, it is an empty huge island a long way from other massive populations with few access points.
Almost no European or American country matches these profiles, which is why nearly all are suffering badly (one exception is Norway). Even countries which did well in the first wave are now enduring big death tolls - eg Czechia, Slovenia.. .
Could the UK have done better? For sure. But we were never going to do as well as all that
As a former resident of Taiwan, I can confirm that "rule obeying" does not make the top 5 000 of their many good qualities.
They are spirited people, but they will follow rules like mask-wearing. That's what I mean.
It took Brits a year to wear masks. Tho our stupid scientific advisors didn't help
Initially they thought preventing people from sitting on benches in parks was more important than wearing masks on public transport. That was quite a big mistake.
When the history books of this pandemic are written, there are going to be kids in 100 years looking at the response and the pictures and pointing saying was everybody in olden times total morons?
We can't even blame the lead poisoning anymore....
I can't work out what the hell they are thinking....vaccines going well, lockdown seems to be working, Boris has managed to stay on message and not gone all sunny uplands are only weeks away....all they needed to do was copy the Australian scheme...literally copy n paste...no, lets try that airbridge thingie again but with hotels thrown in.
Johnson seems to have a real problem with the idea of almost completely suspending foreign travel, as if it wouldn't be the polite thing to do.
Boris' problem is he is unwilling to be disliked, Priti like Thatcher could not care less if people dislike her if she is doing the right thing
I expected this to be said after Priti had been successful in a Palace Coup, not beforehand.
Poor Rishi doesn't even get a look in anymore.
Guess it depends IF you prefer Mister Yes OR Madam No.
I'm more of a Maybe kind of guy, not decisive enough for either of those.
Talk of a max loss of £100 per month maximum betting loss limit being introduced as well. Uncertain times ahead for serious gamblers.
Its full on Jezza policy crap again. We can only be a few months away from him nationalizing footy clubs and turning them all into fan owned co-ops.
Yes it will ruin the UK betting industry, which has been one of the successes of UK plc the last twenty years. Nothing wrong with some reforms, the cut of the FOBTs was overdue, but they should be economically literate and commercially viable which some of the proposals are not, in particular the very low monthly loss limit.
Another reminder that this is a f business, bluekip authoritarian govt not a Thatcherite free market conservative one.
Re: the 55-45 initial US Senate vote on proceeding to trial on 2021 article of impeachment, I agree that it appears positive for You-Know-Who.
HOWEVER, note that both the US Senate and House (and also state legislative chambers) frequently have a series of different roll-calls on the same measure, or rather different aspects of the measure, in which there is MUCH apparently switching, dithering & even changing of minds, as lawmakers do the traditional legislative Dance of the Bumblebees, trying to appease various factions, leaders, pundits, supporters, voters.
"Well, maybe I voted against you here - but I votes with you there, and there."
Sounds pathetic but that's politics.
Part of the explanation for fluctuations in US Senate nay votes against confirming various Biden cabinet picks.
It seems a bit on the implausible side that they'd attempt to scotch the whole process and then, having failed to, go 'Well, now that I have to vote on the matter of substance, I reluctantly agree conviction is warranted'.
Unlikely, sure. Even implausible, though think that's going too far. But certainly NOT impossible.
For one thing, new facts may yet come out re: the heart of the impeachment article before the Senate: Trumpsky's Putsch.
Talk of a max loss of £100 per month maximum betting loss limit being introduced as well. Uncertain times ahead for serious gamblers.
Its full on Jezza policy crap again. We can only be a few months away from him nationalizing footy clubs and turning them all into fan owned co-ops.
Yes it will ruin the UK betting industry, which has been one of the successes of UK plc the last twenty years. Nothing wrong with some reforms, the cut of the FOBTs was overdue, but they should be economically literate and commercially viable which some of the proposals are not, in particular the very low monthly loss limit.
Like technology, normally when governments start getting involved in putting these caps and taxes in place for betting they fundamentally don't understand the games they are regulating.
The taxation systems across Europe on poker are mental. Greece you have to pay tax on every winning day, can't deduct against losing days. Holland its the same, but month based. France put an extra rake tax on every hand of poker, even ones that just get folded around.
To anybody who knows anything about the game, these are just bananas.
Up to now, the UK governments, both red and blue, have been quite sensible when it comes to reforms.
Re: the 55-45 initial US Senate vote on proceeding to trial on 2021 article of impeachment, I agree that it appears positive for You-Know-Who.
HOWEVER, note that both the US Senate and House (and also state legislative chambers) frequently have a series of different roll-calls on the same measure, or rather different aspects of the measure, in which there is MUCH apparently switching, dithering & even changing of minds, as lawmakers do the traditional legislative Dance of the Bumblebees, trying to appease various factions, leaders, pundits, supporters, voters.
"Well, maybe I voted against you here - but I votes with you there, and there."
Sounds pathetic but that's politics.
Part of the explanation for fluctuations in US Senate nay votes against confirming various Biden cabinet picks.
It isn't going to happen with Republican Senators voting to impeach Trump. They've looked at what has happened with Cheney and. more to the point, they have been fielding calls saying the House members aren't doing enough to protect Trump.
Look at Paul's interview on CBS and his comments on electoral fraud, and also what Hawley has been saying in the New York Post about censorship and then proposing a counter-motion to refer Democrat Senators to the Ethics Committee. The Republicans have decided to come out fighting on this.
SOME Republicans. Others are keeping their powder dry. For example, Rob Portman.
Paul & Hawley are perhaps NOT the best examples you might cite for your position, though for somewhat different reasons.
Portman is stepping down so, like Toomey, he can easily afford to vote for impeachment but his comments suggest he's more likely to hold back. Note McConnell - who has been talked about as potentially voting for impeachment - cast his vote with Rand Paul. He could have opposed it and sent a signal but he didn't.
I'm sure there are plenty of Senators who, in their hearts, might want to get vote against Trump but they are well aware of polling like this which raises the risks for them- buy our old friends Rasmussen
Re: the 55-45 initial US Senate vote on proceeding to trial on 2021 article of impeachment, I agree that it appears positive for You-Know-Who.
HOWEVER, note that both the US Senate and House (and also state legislative chambers) frequently have a series of different roll-calls on the same measure, or rather different aspects of the measure, in which there is MUCH apparently switching, dithering & even changing of minds, as lawmakers do the traditional legislative Dance of the Bumblebees, trying to appease various factions, leaders, pundits, supporters, voters.
"Well, maybe I voted against you here - but I votes with you there, and there."
Sounds pathetic but that's politics.
Part of the explanation for fluctuations in US Senate nay votes against confirming various Biden cabinet picks.
It seems a bit on the implausible side that they'd attempt to scotch the whole process and then, having failed to, go 'Well, now that I have to vote on the matter of substance, I reluctantly agree conviction is warranted'.
Unlikely, sure. Even implausible, though think that's going too far. But certainly NOT impossible.
For one thing, new facts may yet come out re: the heart of the impeachment article before the Senate: Trumpsky's Putsch.
I'd like to believe something currently unknown or not as starkly laid out would convince them, but when they fight this hard, even now, to avoid even having to face any case against the man?
Well, hope springs eternal. Short term pain for long term gain, Senators. Trump and his cohorts are angry enough at most of you for certifying anyway, you won't get gratitude from his base for 'saving' him now.
I don't know, Yvette, but I do know what a hotspot is not.
You do? Are you serious or sarcastic?
Surely Yvette's point - and its a good one - is that anywhere without quarantine can become a hotspot and by the time you realise it is a hotspot it is too late.
Which is why we should quarantine everybody. At least until all other restrictions on our civil liberties have been lifted.
No more telling people they can't go to school, but they can go to Dubai instead.
Hopefully MPs in Parliament scrutinise this harshly and not just act like nodding dogs putting it through until something goes wrong in hindsight.
CNN says the UK has the highest death rate per capita from C19. Not true. Slovenia and Belgium are higher, plus a few other small countries. But who cares about facts.
CNN says the UK has the highest death rate per capita from C19. Not true. Slovenia and Belgium are higher, plus a few other small countries. But who cares about facts.
A cynical thought crossed my mind while walking the dogs. Perhaps the whole EU vaccine export restrictions and the German AZN is crap story are just the EU marketing to anti-vaxxers in the EU. By creating a sense of scarcity about the vaccine, and by blaming outsiders for that scarcity, perhaps their real reason is to get Europeans to demand to have the vaccine NOW.
Talk of a max loss of £100 per month maximum betting loss limit being introduced as well. Uncertain times ahead for serious gamblers.
Its full on Jezza policy crap again. We can only be a few months away from him nationalizing footy clubs and turning them all into fan owned co-ops.
Yes it will ruin the UK betting industry, which has been one of the successes of UK plc the last twenty years. Nothing wrong with some reforms, the cut of the FOBTs was overdue, but they should be economically literate and commercially viable which some of the proposals are not, in particular the very low monthly loss limit.
Like technology, normally when governments start getting involved in putting these caps and taxes in place for betting they fundamentally don't understand the games they are regulating.
The taxation systems across Europe on poker are mental. Greece you have to pay tax on every winning day, can't deduct against losing days. Holland its the same, but month based. France put an extra rake tax on every hand of poker, even ones that just get folded around.
To anybody who knows anything about the game, these are just bananas.
Up to now, the UK governments, both red and blue, have been quite sensible when it comes to reforms.
Agree with all of that, in comparison Clive Hawkswood did an excellent job with driving the UK Gambling Act back in 2005 - definitely some big mistakes but a lot more very good decisions including the then controversial decision to allow betting exchanges.
If anyone has time and is interested in continuing to be able to bet more than £100 per month it is worth taking part in the consultation:
Re: the 55-45 initial US Senate vote on proceeding to trial on 2021 article of impeachment, I agree that it appears positive for You-Know-Who.
HOWEVER, note that both the US Senate and House (and also state legislative chambers) frequently have a series of different roll-calls on the same measure, or rather different aspects of the measure, in which there is MUCH apparently switching, dithering & even changing of minds, as lawmakers do the traditional legislative Dance of the Bumblebees, trying to appease various factions, leaders, pundits, supporters, voters.
"Well, maybe I voted against you here - but I votes with you there, and there."
Sounds pathetic but that's politics.
Part of the explanation for fluctuations in US Senate nay votes against confirming various Biden cabinet picks.
It seems a bit on the implausible side that they'd attempt to scotch the whole process and then, having failed to, go 'Well, now that I have to vote on the matter of substance, I reluctantly agree conviction is warranted'.
Unlikely, sure. Even implausible, though think that's going too far. But certainly NOT impossible.
For one thing, new facts may yet come out re: the heart of the impeachment article before the Senate: Trumpsky's Putsch.
I'd like to believe something currently unknown or not as starkly laid out would convince them, but when they fight this hard, even now, to avoid even having to face any case against the man?
Well, hope springs eternal. Short term pain for long term gain, Senators. Trump and his cohorts are angry enough at most of you for certifying anyway, you won't get gratitude from his base for 'saving' him now.
You and Mr Ed are probably right. Certainly yours truly would NOT bet the farm (or a plucked chicken) on conviction.
But then that's my standard betting policy. Ever since I lost my last nickel in Vegas; it was a buffalo-head!
CNN says the UK has the highest death rate per capita from C19. Not true. Slovenia and Belgium are higher, plus a few other small countries. But who cares about facts.
This annoys me so much less than the German Arschlöcher spreading anti vax fuelling rubbish. If anything, it might even help counter our government's ludicrous reluctance to reduce our global travel hub status
I don't know, Yvette, but I do know what a hotspot is not.
You do? Are you serious or sarcastic?
Surely Yvette's point - and its a good one - is that anywhere without quarantine can become a hotspot and by the time you realise it is a hotspot it is too late.
Which is why we should quarantine everybody. At least until all other restrictions on our civil liberties have been lifted.
No more telling people they can't go to school, but they can go to Dubai instead.
Hopefully MPs in Parliament scrutinise this harshly and not just act like nodding dogs putting it through until something goes wrong in hindsight.
Talk of a max loss of £100 per month maximum betting loss limit being introduced as well. Uncertain times ahead for serious gamblers.
Its full on Jezza policy crap again. We can only be a few months away from him nationalizing footy clubs and turning them all into fan owned co-ops.
Yes it will ruin the UK betting industry, which has been one of the successes of UK plc the last twenty years. Nothing wrong with some reforms, the cut of the FOBTs was overdue, but they should be economically literate and commercially viable which some of the proposals are not, in particular the very low monthly loss limit.
Like technology, normally when governments start getting involved in putting these caps and taxes in place for betting they fundamentally don't understand the games they are regulating.
The taxation systems across Europe on poker are mental. Greece you have to pay tax on every winning day, can't deduct against losing days. Holland its the same, but month based. France put an extra rake tax on every hand of poker, even ones that just get folded around.
To anybody who knows anything about the game, these are just bananas.
Up to now, the UK governments, both red and blue, have been quite sensible when it comes to reforms.
If its going to be taxed then why not as part of the rake? Does the rake not get taken just because a hand is folded around - surely the point generally of a folded hand is the blinds are all that's in so the rake is tiny and thus the tax is tiny?
If you're going to tax it then taxing the rake - and then no tax on winners - seems an entirely logical method of doing so. Clean, simple, at source, hard to dodge and no messing around with tax returns etc for winners.
If everyone is prepared to pay for the rake in order to partake in the sport - and if a tax is going to be levied - then why not do so at source at the rake?
A cynical thought crossed my mind while walking the dogs. Perhaps the whole EU vaccine export restrictions and the German AZN is crap story are just the EU marketing to anti-vaxxers in the EU. By creating a sense of scarcity about the vaccine, and by blaming outsiders for that scarcity, perhaps their real reason is to get Europeans to demand to have the vaccine NOW.
What, by telling them it doesn't actually work?
Also what if Europeans do start demanding the vaccine now? The EU is in no place to give it to them.
I don't know, Yvette, but I do know what a hotspot is not.
You do? Are you serious or sarcastic?
Surely Yvette's point - and its a good one - is that anywhere without quarantine can become a hotspot and by the time you realise it is a hotspot it is too late.
Which is why we should quarantine everybody. At least until all other restrictions on our civil liberties have been lifted.
No more telling people they can't go to school, but they can go to Dubai instead.
Hopefully MPs in Parliament scrutinise this harshly and not just act like nodding dogs putting it through until something goes wrong in hindsight.
You might be too young for Michael Barrymore.....
Yes. He had someone in his pool - that's the only reference I get.
My curry house in Llantwit Major does the personal orders before the pre-paid on line orders. I always have a 15 minute wait in Pound Field carpark despite the earlier order. A good chicken bhuna nonetheless.
I don't know, Yvette, but I do know what a hotspot is not.
You do? Are you serious or sarcastic?
Surely Yvette's point - and its a good one - is that anywhere without quarantine can become a hotspot and by the time you realise it is a hotspot it is too late.
Which is why we should quarantine everybody. At least until all other restrictions on our civil liberties have been lifted.
No more telling people they can't go to school, but they can go to Dubai instead.
Hopefully MPs in Parliament scrutinise this harshly and not just act like nodding dogs putting it through until something goes wrong in hindsight.
You might be too young for Michael Barrymore.....
Yes. He had someone in his pool - that's the only reference I get.
His catchphrase is "Whats a hot spot not? A good spot."
Wont make any sense without watching the show. Didnt make much sense when watching the show.
Re: the 55-45 initial US Senate vote on proceeding to trial on 2021 article of impeachment, I agree that it appears positive for You-Know-Who.
HOWEVER, note that both the US Senate and House (and also state legislative chambers) frequently have a series of different roll-calls on the same measure, or rather different aspects of the measure, in which there is MUCH apparently switching, dithering & even changing of minds, as lawmakers do the traditional legislative Dance of the Bumblebees, trying to appease various factions, leaders, pundits, supporters, voters.
"Well, maybe I voted against you here - but I votes with you there, and there."
Sounds pathetic but that's politics.
Part of the explanation for fluctuations in US Senate nay votes against confirming various Biden cabinet picks.
It isn't going to happen with Republican Senators voting to impeach Trump. They've looked at what has happened with Cheney and. more to the point, they have been fielding calls saying the House members aren't doing enough to protect Trump.
Look at Paul's interview on CBS and his comments on electoral fraud, and also what Hawley has been saying in the New York Post about censorship and then proposing a counter-motion to refer Democrat Senators to the Ethics Committee. The Republicans have decided to come out fighting on this.
SOME Republicans. Others are keeping their powder dry. For example, Rob Portman.
Paul & Hawley are perhaps NOT the best examples you might cite for your position, though for somewhat different reasons.
Portman is stepping down so, like Toomey, he can easily afford to vote for impeachment but his comments suggest he's more likely to hold back. Note McConnell - who has been talked about as potentially voting for impeachment - cast his vote with Rand Paul. He could have opposed it and sent a signal but he didn't.
I'm sure there are plenty of Senators who, in their hearts, might want to get vote against Trump but they are well aware of polling like this which raises the risks for them- buy our old friends Rasmussen
I don't know, Yvette, but I do know what a hotspot is not.
You do? Are you serious or sarcastic?
Surely Yvette's point - and its a good one - is that anywhere without quarantine can become a hotspot and by the time you realise it is a hotspot it is too late.
Which is why we should quarantine everybody. At least until all other restrictions on our civil liberties have been lifted.
No more telling people they can't go to school, but they can go to Dubai instead.
Hopefully MPs in Parliament scrutinise this harshly and not just act like nodding dogs putting it through until something goes wrong in hindsight.
You might be too young for Michael Barrymore.....
Yes. He had someone in his pool - that's the only reference I get.
His catchphrase is "Whats a hot spot not? A good spot."
Wont make any sense without watching the show. Didnt make much sense when watching the show.
Talk of a max loss of £100 per month maximum betting loss limit being introduced as well. Uncertain times ahead for serious gamblers.
Its full on Jezza policy crap again. We can only be a few months away from him nationalizing footy clubs and turning them all into fan owned co-ops.
Yes it will ruin the UK betting industry, which has been one of the successes of UK plc the last twenty years. Nothing wrong with some reforms, the cut of the FOBTs was overdue, but they should be economically literate and commercially viable which some of the proposals are not, in particular the very low monthly loss limit.
Like technology, normally when governments start getting involved in putting these caps and taxes in place for betting they fundamentally don't understand the games they are regulating.
The taxation systems across Europe on poker are mental. Greece you have to pay tax on every winning day, can't deduct against losing days. Holland its the same, but month based. France put an extra rake tax on every hand of poker, even ones that just get folded around.
To anybody who knows anything about the game, these are just bananas.
Up to now, the UK governments, both red and blue, have been quite sensible when it comes to reforms.
If its going to be taxed then why not as part of the rake? Does the rake not get taken just because a hand is folded around - surely the point generally of a folded hand is the blinds are all that's in so the rake is tiny and thus the tax is tiny?
If you're going to tax it then taxing the rake - and then no tax on winners - seems an entirely logical method of doing so. Clean, simple, at source, hard to dodge and no messing around with tax returns etc for winners.
If everyone is prepared to pay for the rake in order to partake in the sport - and if a tax is going to be levied - then why not do so at source at the rake?
No, rake is not usually charged if a hand doesn't see the flop. No flop, no drop policy, is pretty much universal. There are a whole load of reasons why it is unfair approach.
Here is one....if there is rake on every hand, there is less incentive to try and steal the blinds. This discourages action. Less action, less big pots, it actually can have the effect of reducing the overall tax take, because loads of hands just get folded around.
Furthermore, less chance for winning players to have good winrates to make a living and also ultimately less tax for the government.
The UK has the correct approach, they charge the remote gambling operators a gambling duty on their gross gambling profits from UK customers no matter where in the world the operators are located.
FPT I see a lot of tough words on here from some people about penalising certain types of speech especially related to spreading untruths about vaccinations.
I'm not expressing a view on that, but I'd like to know what the difference is between being an antivaxxer and being a climate change denier. To me they seem directly equivalent, and when I think of it in those terms it points me towards having the same view on what should or shouldn't happen to those people.
I think climate change is tricky. It’s clearly happening, our civilisation has probably played a significant role, but there are genuine questions not yet answered. For instance, what is the optimum temperature for the earth? If we stopped all CO2 emissions today, what would happen? Is there a component of the recent warming that is natural variation? What is the best way to combat climate change (if possible?) Its an incredibly politicised area. Many extremists on both sides. Some lamentable data practices that don’t match up to open science. I am what would be described as a Luke warmer. Clearly climate change is occurring, but I do not subscribe to the extreme predictions of doom. Am I a denier?
It's not that the world being warmer is necessarily a bad thing, the main problems are that we are adapted to the current climate and the change will be very bad. Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal cities. Weather patterns will change, disrupting agriculture. And so on.
Likely temperatures would stay about the same. While CO2 levels would decline, this effect would be balanced by the lag in temperature reaching equilibrium.
Overall natural effects on the climate have been for a slight cooling effect over the last several decades.
We should use all our technology and ingenuity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from fossil fuels, to zero as soon as possible.
I don't know, Yvette, but I do know what a hotspot is not.
You do? Are you serious or sarcastic?
Surely Yvette's point - and its a good one - is that anywhere without quarantine can become a hotspot and by the time you realise it is a hotspot it is too late.
Which is why we should quarantine everybody. At least until all other restrictions on our civil liberties have been lifted.
No more telling people they can't go to school, but they can go to Dubai instead.
Hopefully MPs in Parliament scrutinise this harshly and not just act like nodding dogs putting it through until something goes wrong in hindsight.
You might be too young for Michael Barrymore.....
Yes. He had someone in his pool - that's the only reference I get.
His catchphrase is "Whats a hot spot not? A good spot."
Wont make any sense without watching the show. Didnt make much sense when watching the show.
Perhaps the lockdown tiers should have been top, middle and bottom.
Talk of a max loss of £100 per month maximum betting loss limit being introduced as well. Uncertain times ahead for serious gamblers.
Its full on Jezza policy crap again. We can only be a few months away from him nationalizing footy clubs and turning them all into fan owned co-ops.
Yes it will ruin the UK betting industry, which has been one of the successes of UK plc the last twenty years. Nothing wrong with some reforms, the cut of the FOBTs was overdue, but they should be economically literate and commercially viable which some of the proposals are not, in particular the very low monthly loss limit.
Like technology, normally when governments start getting involved in putting these caps and taxes in place for betting they fundamentally don't understand the games they are regulating.
The taxation systems across Europe on poker are mental. Greece you have to pay tax on every winning day, can't deduct against losing days. Holland its the same, but month based. France put an extra rake tax on every hand of poker, even ones that just get folded around.
To anybody who knows anything about the game, these are just bananas.
Up to now, the UK governments, both red and blue, have been quite sensible when it comes to reforms.
If its going to be taxed then why not as part of the rake? Does the rake not get taken just because a hand is folded around - surely the point generally of a folded hand is the blinds are all that's in so the rake is tiny and thus the tax is tiny?
If you're going to tax it then taxing the rake - and then no tax on winners - seems an entirely logical method of doing so. Clean, simple, at source, hard to dodge and no messing around with tax returns etc for winners.
If everyone is prepared to pay for the rake in order to partake in the sport - and if a tax is going to be levied - then why not do so at source at the rake?
No, rake is not usually charged if a hand doesn't see the flop. No flop, no drop policy, is pretty much universal. There are a whole load of reasons why it is unfair approach.
Here is one....if there is rake on every hand, there is less incentive to try and steal the blinds. This discourages action. Less action, less big pots, it actually can have the effect of reducing the overall tax take, because loads of hands just get folded around.
Furthermore, less chance for winning players to have good winrates to make a living and also ultimately less tax for the government.
The UK has the correct approach, they charge the remote gambling operators a gambling duty on their gross gambling profits from UK customers no matter where in the world the operators are located.
Ah I see - I thought you meant they charged a percentage of rake. So if the operator wasn't charging rake there would be no tax, but if the operator was charging rake then there would be.
I didn't think you meant they were charging a "rake tax" even on rakeless hands.
Talk of a max loss of £100 per month maximum betting loss limit being introduced as well. Uncertain times ahead for serious gamblers.
Its full on Jezza policy crap again. We can only be a few months away from him nationalizing footy clubs and turning them all into fan owned co-ops.
Yes it will ruin the UK betting industry, which has been one of the successes of UK plc the last twenty years. Nothing wrong with some reforms, the cut of the FOBTs was overdue, but they should be economically literate and commercially viable which some of the proposals are not, in particular the very low monthly loss limit.
Like technology, normally when governments start getting involved in putting these caps and taxes in place for betting they fundamentally don't understand the games they are regulating.
The taxation systems across Europe on poker are mental. Greece you have to pay tax on every winning day, can't deduct against losing days. Holland its the same, but month based. France put an extra rake tax on every hand of poker, even ones that just get folded around.
To anybody who knows anything about the game, these are just bananas.
Up to now, the UK governments, both red and blue, have been quite sensible when it comes to reforms.
If its going to be taxed then why not as part of the rake? Does the rake not get taken just because a hand is folded around - surely the point generally of a folded hand is the blinds are all that's in so the rake is tiny and thus the tax is tiny?
If you're going to tax it then taxing the rake - and then no tax on winners - seems an entirely logical method of doing so. Clean, simple, at source, hard to dodge and no messing around with tax returns etc for winners.
If everyone is prepared to pay for the rake in order to partake in the sport - and if a tax is going to be levied - then why not do so at source at the rake?
No, rake is not usually charged if a hand doesn't see the flop. No flop, no drop policy, is pretty much universal. There are a whole load of reasons why it is unfair approach.
Here is one....if there is rake on every hand, there is less incentive to try and steal the blinds. This discourages action. Less action, less big pots, it actually can have the effect of reducing the overall tax take, because loads of hands just get folded around.
Furthermore, less chance for winning players to have good winrates to make a living and also ultimately less tax for the government.
The UK has the correct approach, they charge the remote gambling operators a gambling duty on their gross gambling profits from UK customers no matter where in the world the operators are located.
Ah I see - I thought you meant they charged a percentage of rake. So if the operator wasn't charging rake there would be no tax, but if the operator was charging rake then there would be.
I didn't think you meant they were charging a "rake tax" even on rakeless hands.
I believe the French have changed it now, as it was such a stupid rule. I am not really up to date with these things, but I think they have gone more for the UK model.
The Greece approach is totally mental and resulted in crazy behaviour. What happens is if you are Greek and have a winning day you enter a say a £1k or £10k tournament that is due to be played in the future....thus technically you didn't win that day. Then you unregister from these when you have a losing day.
So its all a stupid pain in the ass to flatten out this unfair approach, all because the Greek government didn't really understand how poker works.
There was a story of a young man riddled with Covid embarking on several mega pub crawls in the Rhonda Valley during the early autumn. Soon after, the East Glamorgan Hospital was overrun with Covid, and has pretty well remained so ever since.
There is also particular breed of older Welsh "boyo" who finds it impossible to wear a mask over both the nose and mouth. Besides the mask being at half mast, you can tell them by the ruddy complexion, red nose and Corporal Jones moustache.
Talk of a max loss of £100 per month maximum betting loss limit being introduced as well. Uncertain times ahead for serious gamblers.
Its full on Jezza policy crap again. We can only be a few months away from him nationalizing footy clubs and turning them all into fan owned co-ops.
Yes it will ruin the UK betting industry, which has been one of the successes of UK plc the last twenty years. Nothing wrong with some reforms, the cut of the FOBTs was overdue, but they should be economically literate and commercially viable which some of the proposals are not, in particular the very low monthly loss limit.
Like technology, normally when governments start getting involved in putting these caps and taxes in place for betting they fundamentally don't understand the games they are regulating.
The taxation systems across Europe on poker are mental. Greece you have to pay tax on every winning day, can't deduct against losing days. Holland its the same, but month based. France put an extra rake tax on every hand of poker, even ones that just get folded around.
To anybody who knows anything about the game, these are just bananas.
Up to now, the UK governments, both red and blue, have been quite sensible when it comes to reforms.
Agree with all of that, in comparison Clive Hawkswood did an excellent job with driving the UK Gambling Act back in 2005 - definitely some big mistakes but a lot more very good decisions including the then controversial decision to allow betting exchanges.
If anyone has time and is interested in continuing to be able to bet more than £100 per month it is worth taking part in the consultation:
Strongly concur with this - there's a lot of irrelevant nonsense in the consultation and it takes a lot of time to fill in. But any profitable gambler should be incensed at what they're planning to do and should take the time to respond. @MikeSmithson, @TheScreamingEagles, @rcs1000 is there any possibility of an article about it?
The craziest thing is that spread betting is regulated by the FCA. So watch Betfair (or similar) convert subsequently to binaries!
I am immensely angry about the whole thing - best estimate is it's going to cut our household income by about 10%.
I don't know, Yvette, but I do know what a hotspot is not.
You do? Are you serious or sarcastic?
Surely Yvette's point - and its a good one - is that anywhere without quarantine can become a hotspot and by the time you realise it is a hotspot it is too late.
Which is why we should quarantine everybody. At least until all other restrictions on our civil liberties have been lifted.
No more telling people they can't go to school, but they can go to Dubai instead.
Hopefully MPs in Parliament scrutinise this harshly and not just act like nodding dogs putting it through until something goes wrong in hindsight.
You might be too young for Michael Barrymore.....
Yes. He had someone in his pool - that's the only reference I get.
His catchphrase is "Whats a hot spot not? A good spot."
Wont make any sense without watching the show. Didnt make much sense when watching the show.
Yeah, this. He had many catchphrases. None of the others made much sense either.
It could still be the real table; followers don't ensure accuracy.
It's not hard finding that number elsewhere
"And when we get to people over 75, what they describe isn’t a confidence interval, it’s a joke. A confidence interval of -12.1 to 100 is a lot like saying they threw a bunch of darts at a dart board at random and did everything from hit bystanders (i.e. the vaccine made things worse) to perfect protection. They simply didn’t have enough cases to say anything meaningful and so what they say is just totally useless." https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/12/how-good-is-the-pfizer-vaccine-for-older-people.html
It could still be the real table; followers don't ensure accuracy.
It's not hard finding that number elsewhere
"And when we get to people over 75, what they describe isn’t a confidence interval, it’s a joke. A confidence interval of -12.1 to 100 is a lot like saying they threw a bunch of darts at a dart board at random and did everything from hit bystanders (i.e. the vaccine made things worse) to perfect protection. They simply didn’t have enough cases to say anything meaningful and so what they say is just totally useless." https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/12/how-good-is-the-pfizer-vaccine-for-older-people.html
"The change in the age groupings from 18-55 and 65-85 in Phase 1/2 to 12-15, 16-55 and >55 years of age in Expanded Phase 2/3, has limited the assessment of safety and efficacy in elderly, frail populations by combining working age, community-living empty-nesters and seniors with an older, sicker population. In the Phase 2/3 portion, " In participants … 75 years of age and older …, efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 was … 100% (two-sided 95% confidence interval of -13.1% to 100.0%)...." 100% efficacy means that they had no COVID-19 cases in the oldest group that received the vaccine; but the confidence interval is statistically meaningless." https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/childrens-health-defense-calls-for-more-study-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine-for-seniors-and-blacks-in-advance-of-emergency-use-authorization-eua-in-these-populations-301190694.html
I used Google Translate option on Firefox to translate it from English to Italian (its remarkable how good that has become) and it is a really interesting piece.
One interesting remark: they're contractually obliged to serve the UK first from the UK manufactured doses. Sending doses from the UK to the EU before the UK contract has been issued would be a breach of contract. The government did get in first and insist on first supply.
Another interesting thing though is he explicitly said that is reasonable considering the vaccine was a not for profit collaboration between AZN, Oxford University and the British Government. Interesting to see that made clear in an Italian interview.
I'm not trying to impugn Pfizer in any way, btw. Just wondering if confidence intervals might have been what was misunderstood by idiot German politicians and journalists about the AZ vaccine. I think that idea was posited here yesterday.
I'm not trying to impugn Pfizer in any way, btw. Just wondering if confidence intervals might have been what was misunderstood by idiot German politicians and journalists about the AZ vaccine. I think that idea was posited here yesterday.
If that were the explanation I don't think they would have backtracked in quite the same way. It would have been much easier to issue a clarification.
Talk of a max loss of £100 per month maximum betting loss limit being introduced as well. Uncertain times ahead for serious gamblers.
Its full on Jezza policy crap again. We can only be a few months away from him nationalizing footy clubs and turning them all into fan owned co-ops.
Yes it will ruin the UK betting industry, which has been one of the successes of UK plc the last twenty years. Nothing wrong with some reforms, the cut of the FOBTs was overdue, but they should be economically literate and commercially viable which some of the proposals are not, in particular the very low monthly loss limit.
Like technology, normally when governments start getting involved in putting these caps and taxes in place for betting they fundamentally don't understand the games they are regulating.
The taxation systems across Europe on poker are mental. Greece you have to pay tax on every winning day, can't deduct against losing days. Holland its the same, but month based. France put an extra rake tax on every hand of poker, even ones that just get folded around.
To anybody who knows anything about the game, these are just bananas.
Up to now, the UK governments, both red and blue, have been quite sensible when it comes to reforms.
Agree with all of that, in comparison Clive Hawkswood did an excellent job with driving the UK Gambling Act back in 2005 - definitely some big mistakes but a lot more very good decisions including the then controversial decision to allow betting exchanges.
If anyone has time and is interested in continuing to be able to bet more than £100 per month it is worth taking part in the consultation:
Strongly concur with this - there's a lot of irrelevant nonsense in the consultation and it takes a lot of time to fill in. But any profitable gambler should be incensed at what they're planning to do and should take the time to respond. @MikeSmithson, @TheScreamingEagles, @rcs1000 is there any possibility of an article about it?
The craziest thing is that spread betting is regulated by the FCA. So watch Betfair (or similar) convert subsequently to binaries!
I am immensely angry about the whole thing - best estimate is it's going to cut our household income by about 10%.
Don't have skin in this game, but certainly sounds like an excellent topic for a PB article & thred.
I used Google Translate option on Firefox to translate it from English to Italian (its remarkable how good that has become) and it is a really interesting piece.
One interesting remark: they're contractually obliged to serve the UK first from the UK manufactured doses. Sending doses from the UK to the EU before the UK contract has been issued would be a breach of contract. The government did get in first and insist on first supply.
Another interesting thing though is he explicitly said that is reasonable considering the vaccine was a not for profit collaboration between AZN, Oxford University and the British Government. Interesting to see that made clear in an Italian interview.
But why didn't these hiccups occur in the production chain of vaccine doses destined for the UK?
"We had problems in this case too, but the supply contract with the British government was signed three months before the one with the EU and therefore we had time to prepare and resolve similar malfunctions pending the agency's ok.
So Europe signed a contract with you too late (end of August 2020), compared to Boris Johnson's government (first 30 million doses ordered in mid-May 2020)?
Unfortunately, it has happened that the least efficient sites for now are in Europe.
I'm not trying to impugn Pfizer in any way, btw. Just wondering if confidence intervals might have been what was misunderstood by idiot German politicians and journalists about the AZ vaccine. I think that idea was posited here yesterday.
If that were the explanation I don't think they would have backtracked in quite the same way. It would have been much easier to issue a clarification.
It could still be the real table; followers don't ensure accuracy.
It's not hard finding that number elsewhere
"And when we get to people over 75, what they describe isn’t a confidence interval, it’s a joke. A confidence interval of -12.1 to 100 is a lot like saying they threw a bunch of darts at a dart board at random and did everything from hit bystanders (i.e. the vaccine made things worse) to perfect protection. They simply didn’t have enough cases to say anything meaningful and so what they say is just totally useless." https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/12/how-good-is-the-pfizer-vaccine-for-older-people.html
This is the best explanation I have heard yet. The AZ chief has admitted today that, due to small samples, the Confidence Interval for older people was very wide. He didn't say what, but maybe one data-set went from 8% to 93% or whatever.
Now imagine a German health official reading this, and either misunderstanding the data, or wanting to have a go at AZ (there was clearly much EU anger at AZ yesterday - apparently unjustified).
He says to himself OMG look, this vaccine is only 8% effective in oldsters! He relays this to an overkeen young journo, hungry for a scoop. He doesn't mention that it is actually a suggestion of a possibility of something that could happen, just gives the bald figure.
Et voila. Young journalist rushes to print. And what is an extreme outlying scenario becomes a "fact"
AstraZeneca’s first supply contract was signed with the UK in May last year. Ministers were keen to ensure that a UK company commercialised the Oxford University technology, rejecting an alternative deal with US giant Merck.
Insiders at the time were worried that Donald Trump, the former US president, might put pressure on Merck to halt supplies to the UK. “What we didn’t expect was the EU might end up going down this path,” a former UK government official said
It’s ugly and sad really isn’t? 😕
I wonder if there is a sting in the tail though, when everyone should be bailing out the water, together, in unison? That breakdown in togetherness could work the other way later on, hence why the UK government has been going out its way not to be drawn away from reaching out and being as cooperative as possible, not that they could ultimately influence future decision making now it’s gone so far 🙁
I'm not trying to impugn Pfizer in any way, btw. Just wondering if confidence intervals might have been what was misunderstood by idiot German politicians and journalists about the AZ vaccine. I think that idea was posited here yesterday.
If that were the explanation I don't think they would have backtracked in quite the same way. It would have been much easier to issue a clarification.
Not if you are a supposed expert science correspondent. Admitting such a basic error would be personally humiliating. Career ending?
Says the man who has spent years attacking and destroying the rules, consent and comity - and ran a complete scorched earth policy.
Rules, consent, and comity suddenly become really crucial when you're in a narrow minority whereas they didn't mean sh1t when you had a narrow majority. Weird, innit?
I can't work out what the hell they are thinking....vaccines going well, lockdown seems to be working, Boris has managed to stay on message and not gone all sunny uplands are only weeks away....all they needed to do was copy the Australian scheme...literally copy n paste...no, lets try that airbridge thingie again but with hotels thrown in.
Johnson seems to have a real problem with the idea of almost completely suspending foreign travel, as if it wouldn't be the polite thing to do.
Boris' problem is he is unwilling to be disliked, Priti like Thatcher could not care less if people dislike her if she is doing the right thing
Yes but at a more mundane level, Boris takes exotic foreign holidays: does Priti?
I'm not trying to impugn Pfizer in any way, btw. Just wondering if confidence intervals might have been what was misunderstood by idiot German politicians and journalists about the AZ vaccine. I think that idea was posited here yesterday.
If that were the explanation I don't think they would have backtracked in quite the same way. It would have been much easier to issue a clarification.
If the sample is small enough, then the 95% confidence interval is large - as we know from opinion polls. It could be true that the clinical trials had a very small number of people over 85 who contracted the disease? Remember that the efficacy is measured not by looking at proportion of people who got it, but by comparing the proportion who got it in the drug group and the control group.
By now, though, there are so many people who've been vaccinated that the "sample" is gigantic, and it should be possible soon to draw some definitive conclusions. For Pfizer we already have data on this from Israel which looks encouraging.
I can not believe a lower bound would be put at a negative number. Surely the lower bound would be 0% axiomatically?
And given there 95% data I can't believe it'd be anywhere near 0%.
Negative efficacy is perfectly possible, at least in theory. Imagine we did a double blind trial with the same endpoints as this vaccine study, but instead of the vaccine, we gave a dose of live coronavirus or placebo to participants. It wouldn't be surprising if the trial arm returned more infections than the placebo arm, which would then show a negative efficacy.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is the case with the AZ, but it's not inconceivable that a vaccine can mess with the immune response in ways which provide a negative result - e. g. There was a dengue fever vaccine trialed which was found to make the course of the disease worse if the participant hadn't previously been infected - depending on the study endpoints, that could well have resulted in a theoretical negative efficacy calculation.
Does that mean if you die from COVID and they give you the AZN vaccine there is a chance you come back to life?
No I think it means that even if you don't come into contact with Covid, the vaccine gives you Covid.
Its not going to do so of course.
Mathematically that could be within the uncertainty interval, if the sample size is small enough, and you calculate the uncertainty in the simplest way.
Something needs to be done to clear the courts backlog, which btw has been aggravated but not caused by Covid restrictions but whether reducing the size of juries is the answer is unclear. It would not help in civil cases where there is also a backlog but of course no juries.
Comments
https://twitter.com/GrantTucker/status/1354175437350563844?s=20
I am not sure that too much shroud waving is a very effective way of getting the reluctant to take it seriously. It has been shown to be a turn off in areas like smoking for example.
If Johnson ruins your expensive and exclusive skiing holiday due to 10 days in a Travelodge on your return, you won't like him.
Poor Rishi doesn't even get a look in anymore.
Edit: Unless, this isn't another one of those craft illusions again is it?
I believe this type is meant for use in a shower
Look at Paul's interview on CBS and his comments on electoral fraud, and also what Hawley has been saying in the New York Post about censorship and then proposing a counter-motion to refer Democrat Senators to the Ethics Committee. The Republicans have decided to come out fighting on this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270822/#
It took Brits a year to wear masks. Tho our stupid scientific advisors didn't help
Paul & Hawley are perhaps NOT the best examples you might cite for your position, though for somewhat different reasons.
That is what we are talking about from the image, right?
We can't even blame the lead poisoning anymore....
Shit, that's actually Boris, isn't it?
Another reminder that this is a f business, bluekip authoritarian govt not a Thatcherite free market conservative one.
For one thing, new facts may yet come out re: the heart of the impeachment article before the Senate: Trumpsky's Putsch.
The taxation systems across Europe on poker are mental. Greece you have to pay tax on every winning day, can't deduct against losing days. Holland its the same, but month based. France put an extra rake tax on every hand of poker, even ones that just get folded around.
To anybody who knows anything about the game, these are just bananas.
Up to now, the UK governments, both red and blue, have been quite sensible when it comes to reforms.
I'm sure there are plenty of Senators who, in their hearts, might want to get vote against Trump but they are well aware of polling like this which raises the risks for them- buy our old friends Rasmussen
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2021-01/2021-01-25 Poll.png
PS agree re Hawley, he's a loner but he has clearly recognised coming out swinging on this matter is a great way to curry favour with the base.
Well, hope springs eternal. Short term pain for long term gain, Senators. Trump and his cohorts are angry enough at most of you for certifying anyway, you won't get gratitude from his base for 'saving' him now.
Surely Yvette's point - and its a good one - is that anywhere without quarantine can become a hotspot and by the time you realise it is a hotspot it is too late.
Which is why we should quarantine everybody. At least until all other restrictions on our civil liberties have been lifted.
No more telling people they can't go to school, but they can go to Dubai instead.
Hopefully MPs in Parliament scrutinise this harshly and not just act like nodding dogs putting it through until something goes wrong in hindsight.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/26/uk/uk-covid-19-pandemic-response-intl-gbr/index.html
I can't imagine putting it on the bookshelf for any other purpose.
If anyone has time and is interested in continuing to be able to bet more than £100 per month it is worth taking part in the consultation:
https://consult.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/author/remote-customer-interaction-consultation-and-call/
But then that's my standard betting policy. Ever since I lost my last nickel in Vegas; it was a buffalo-head!
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-living-in-the-uks-deadliest-place-for-coronavirus-12195396
If you're going to tax it then taxing the rake - and then no tax on winners - seems an entirely logical method of doing so. Clean, simple, at source, hard to dodge and no messing around with tax returns etc for winners.
If everyone is prepared to pay for the rake in order to partake in the sport - and if a tax is going to be levied - then why not do so at source at the rake?
Also what if Europeans do start demanding the vaccine now? The EU is in no place to give it to them.
Wont make any sense without watching the show. Didnt make much sense when watching the show.
https://twitter.com/UsuallyAnn0yed/status/1354166868618207233
^
^
^
My Head.
I understand, I missed the joke completely.
No, rake is not usually charged if a hand doesn't see the flop. No flop, no drop policy, is pretty much universal. There are a whole load of reasons why it is unfair approach.
Here is one....if there is rake on every hand, there is less incentive to try and steal the blinds. This discourages action. Less action, less big pots, it actually can have the effect of reducing the overall tax take, because loads of hands just get folded around.
Furthermore, less chance for winning players to have good winrates to make a living and also ultimately less tax for the government.
The UK has the correct approach, they charge the remote gambling operators a gambling duty on their gross gambling profits from UK customers no matter where in the world the operators are located.
Likely temperatures would stay about the same. While CO2 levels would decline, this effect would be balanced by the lag in temperature reaching equilibrium.
Overall natural effects on the climate have been for a slight cooling effect over the last several decades.
We should use all our technology and ingenuity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from fossil fuels, to zero as soon as possible.
The truth is not an extremist position.
I didn't think you meant they were charging a "rake tax" even on rakeless hands.
https://twitter.com/phil_messenger/status/1354153847850217473?s=20
The Greece approach is totally mental and resulted in crazy behaviour. What happens is if you are Greek and have a winning day you enter a say a £1k or £10k tournament that is due to be played in the future....thus technically you didn't win that day. Then you unregister from these when you have a losing day.
So its all a stupid pain in the ass to flatten out this unfair approach, all because the Greek government didn't really understand how poker works.
There is also particular breed of older Welsh "boyo" who finds it impossible to wear a mask over both the nose and mouth. Besides the mask being at half mast, you can tell them by the ruddy complexion, red nose and Corporal Jones moustache.
I can not believe a lower bound would be put at a negative number. Surely the lower bound would be 0% axiomatically?
And given there 95% data I can't believe it'd be anywhere near 0%.
The craziest thing is that spread betting is regulated by the FCA. So watch Betfair (or similar) convert subsequently to binaries!
I am immensely angry about the whole thing - best estimate is it's going to cut our household income by about 10%.
https://twitter.com/CatalinMU/status/1354190871344906244?s=20
It's not hard finding that number elsewhere
"And when we get to people over 75, what they describe isn’t a confidence interval, it’s a joke. A confidence interval of -12.1 to 100 is a lot like saying they threw a bunch of darts at a dart board at random and did everything from hit bystanders (i.e. the vaccine made things worse) to perfect protection. They simply didn’t have enough cases to say anything meaningful and so what they say is just totally useless."
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/12/how-good-is-the-pfizer-vaccine-for-older-people.html
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/childrens-health-defense-calls-for-more-study-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine-for-seniors-and-blacks-in-advance-of-emergency-use-authorization-eua-in-these-populations-301190694.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55813636
I used Google Translate option on Firefox to translate it from English to Italian (its remarkable how good that has become) and it is a really interesting piece.
One interesting remark: they're contractually obliged to serve the UK first from the UK manufactured doses. Sending doses from the UK to the EU before the UK contract has been issued would be a breach of contract. The government did get in first and insist on first supply.
Another interesting thing though is he explicitly said that is reasonable considering the vaccine was a not for profit collaboration between AZN, Oxford University and the British Government. Interesting to see that made clear in an Italian interview.
"We had problems in this case too, but the supply contract with the British government was signed three months before the one with the EU and therefore we had time to prepare and resolve similar malfunctions pending the agency's ok.
So Europe signed a contract with you too late (end of August 2020), compared to Boris Johnson's government (first 30 million doses ordered in mid-May 2020)?
Unfortunately, it has happened that the least efficient sites for now are in Europe.
https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1354212448987963395?s=20
Now imagine a German health official reading this, and either misunderstanding the data, or wanting to have a go at AZ (there was clearly much EU anger at AZ yesterday - apparently unjustified).
He says to himself OMG look, this vaccine is only 8% effective in oldsters! He relays this to an overkeen young journo, hungry for a scoop. He doesn't mention that it is actually a suggestion of a possibility of something that could happen, just gives the bald figure.
Et voila. Young journalist rushes to print. And what is an extreme outlying scenario becomes a "fact"
Its not going to do so of course.
I wonder if there is a sting in the tail though, when everyone should be bailing out the water, together, in unison? That breakdown in togetherness could work the other way later on, hence why the UK government has been going out its way not to be drawn away from reaching out and being as cooperative as possible, not that they could ultimately influence future decision making now it’s gone so far 🙁
And why is the WI Governor so sane?
https://twitter.com/bertll11/status/1354040797084135425?s=20
By now, though, there are so many people who've been vaccinated that the "sample" is gigantic, and it should be possible soon to draw some definitive conclusions. For Pfizer we already have data on this from Israel which looks encouraging.
Imagine we did a double blind trial with the same endpoints as this vaccine study, but instead of the vaccine, we gave a dose of live coronavirus or placebo to participants.
It wouldn't be surprising if the trial arm returned more infections than the placebo arm, which would then show a negative efficacy.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is the case with the AZ, but it's not inconceivable that a vaccine can mess with the immune response in ways which provide a negative result - e. g. There was a dengue fever vaccine trialed which was found to make the course of the disease worse if the participant hadn't previously been infected - depending on the study endpoints, that could well have resulted in a theoretical negative efficacy calculation.
youtube.com/watch?v=gRYFg-ZPs_U