Howdy, Stranger!

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

A glimmer of hope? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,168
edited January 2021 in General
A glimmer of hope? – politicalbetting.com

7.64 million doses have been administered as of 26 Jan. This includes 7.16 million first and 474,156 second dosesBy NationEngland: 6.67M (FD:6.22M) (SD:444K)Wales: 312.9K (FD:312.3K) (SD:639)Scotland: 468.7K (FD:462.1K) (SD:6,596)NI: 191.1K (FD:168.1K) (SD:22.91K) pic.twitter.com/fZY3hnZiia

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,207
    In Los Angeles, daily cases have fallen from 20,000 to 6,000.

    They're reopening restaurants for outside dining on Friday. Whoopppeee!
  • First? Good news for OGH. Lancashire storming ahead with vaccines.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,355
    rcs1000 said:

    In Los Angeles, daily cases have fallen from 20,000 to 6,000.

    They're reopening restaurants for outside dining on Friday. Whoopppeee!

    When is the next lockdown?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,234
    edited January 2021
    Fourth. Like nothing I can currently think about.
  • It will be interesting that if the vaccinations roll out is a success just how much credit Boris will receive despite the many earlier errors
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,865
    rcs1000 said:

    In Los Angeles, daily cases have fallen from 20,000 to 6,000.

    They're reopening restaurants for outside dining on Friday. Whoopppeee!

    Man, they really don't get it in the US do they?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468

    It will be interesting that if the vaccinations roll out is a success just how much credit Boris will receive despite the many earlier errors

    It certainly wont do him any harm.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    First? Good news for OGH. Lancashire storming ahead with vaccines.

    I have not lived in Lancashire since October 1964.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In Los Angeles, daily cases have fallen from 20,000 to 6,000.

    They're reopening restaurants for outside dining on Friday. Whoopppeee!

    Man, they really don't get it in the US do they?
    You might want to narrow that statement down.

    (with apologies to our USAian correspondents)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,355
    MaxPB said:

    FPT because it seems relevant to this thread topic:

    Once again, halving cycle has accelerated. There is definitely now a detectable vaccine effect IMO. Hospitals and care homes have probably now got very little transmission because the people inside them are all immunised to at least some level. This is with around 2.4m people with partial or full immunity. As we start getting through to next week that number really explodes because that's when our vaccine programme took off.

    Very, very slowly the light at the end of the tunnel is becoming brighter. It's the first time I've looked at these numbers ever and felt that way, it's desperately sad for all of those people who have died or have close family/friends who have died, hopefully our rapid rate of vaccination will prevent too much more of this.

    Yes,

    image
    image

    both showing a bigger fall off in the older groups. Early days, though
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,028


    Er.. that’s a bit damning, is it not?
  • Good news for over-70s in Bedford(?). Round here the over-80s have only just started receiving their appointment letters. Some disquiet as nearest centre is 15 miles away. But main feeling is relief that our seniors have finally got dates for their first jabs. Second vaccines all scheduled for April 2021. Overall I think this is positive for the govt.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,477
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In Los Angeles, daily cases have fallen from 20,000 to 6,000.

    They're reopening restaurants for outside dining on Friday. Whoopppeee!

    Man, they really don't get it in the US do they?
    You have the balance the Covid risks against the serious prospect of withdrawal symptoms from high fructose corn syrup and trans fats.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126

    kle4 said:

    JVT just said 'I don't think there ARE clear data.'

    Top bloke.

    The government site on vaccinations is the same. There is many people happy about that.
    Nice use of the schema Pindaricum vel Boeoticum.
    Er, yes, that was intentional.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,893
    Late afternoon all :)

    The case numbers are encouraging though the extent to which this is related to vaccination or to the restrictions of lockdown is unclear.

    Another thing which, to this observer, remains far from clear is the efficacy of the vaccination with the passage of time. If you had the first vaccination immediately after New Year it's roughly the three week point at which Pfizer recommended the second vaccination.

    The question is how will the efficacy of the first vaccination look, not just after 20 days but after 40 days, 60 days or 80 days? Do we know the level of immunity or protection the initial vaccination will provide at that time scale? If you have had a vaccination and are following lockdown restrictions that's all well and good but the test will come when vaccinated people start moving around more freely or restrictions are lifted.

    My presumption is if we are going to provide the second vaccination three months after the first - so around 85 days after the initial vaccination, there must be some level of confidence the level of immunity at that point will still be high and shortly after the second vaccination will reach the levels of 90% or greater suggested by Pfizer.

    I don't know from where that confidence derives but that's the risk on which we are embarking - if we find that, 60 days after the first vaccination, the level of immunity has fallen away significantly, what then?

    For now, let's hope the immunity level holds and those receiving the second vaccination from early April onwards will move quickly to near full immunity which would enable restrictions to be eased from Easter (which I suspect is the plan).

    An earlier easing of restrictions, with significant numbers unvaccinated and most reliant on a single vaccination which might have limited immunity with the passage of time, looks risky but if the data suggests high levels of immunity remain 60-80 days after the initial vaccination, such a risk could be justified but I think we need to see the evidence.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    rcs1000 said:

    In Los Angeles, daily cases have fallen from 20,000 to 6,000.

    They're reopening restaurants for outside dining on Friday. Whoopppeee!

    How does that compare to Florida - which I believe was criticised by the Whitehouse the other day?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,865



    Er.. that’s a bit damning, is it not?

    This is the crux of it, the EU cheaped out on funding it's pharma industry to a level where they could be certain of some level of supply and eventual oversupply. The UK and US have gone in the other direction because the worse thing that can happen is we lose a bit of money, and given the £400bn cost of this pandemic it's chump change.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,234

    First? Good news for OGH. Lancashire storming ahead with vaccines.

    I have not lived in Lancashire since October 1964.
    Should have stayed put :smile:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,932
    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    The case numbers are encouraging though the extent to which this is related to vaccination or to the restrictions of lockdown is unclear.

    Another thing which, to this observer, remains far from clear is the efficacy of the vaccination with the passage of time. If you had the first vaccination immediately after New Year it's roughly the three week point at which Pfizer recommended the second vaccination.

    The question is how will the efficacy of the first vaccination look, not just after 20 days but after 40 days, 60 days or 80 days? Do we know the level of immunity or protection the initial vaccination will provide at that time scale? If you have had a vaccination and are following lockdown restrictions that's all well and good but the test will come when vaccinated people start moving around more freely or restrictions are lifted.

    My presumption is if we are going to provide the second vaccination three months after the first - so around 85 days after the initial vaccination, there must be some level of confidence the level of immunity at that point will still be high and shortly after the second vaccination will reach the levels of 90% or greater suggested by Pfizer.

    I don't know from where that confidence derives but that's the risk on which we are embarking - if we find that, 60 days after the first vaccination, the level of immunity has fallen away significantly, what then?

    For now, let's hope the immunity level holds and those receiving the second vaccination from early April onwards will move quickly to near full immunity which would enable restrictions to be eased from Easter (which I suspect is the plan).

    An earlier easing of restrictions, with significant numbers unvaccinated and most reliant on a single vaccination which might have limited immunity with the passage of time, looks risky but if the data suggests high levels of immunity remain 60-80 days after the initial vaccination, such a risk could be justified but I think we need to see the evidence.

    In two months we are going to be drowning in vaccines. I don't see it being a problem if an additional booster is required.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited January 2021
    FPT

    MaxPB said:


    ...
    This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.

    Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
    Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
    Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
    What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.

    Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
    No, months is accurate.

    The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.

    Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
    No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.

    To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.

    Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same.
    If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
    Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.

    They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
    December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2%
    January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.

    Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU
    So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.

    So yes, in actual fact, the paths for the limited amount of data we have map very well to a 3 week lag.
    See for yourself:
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1354456494578819079

    Just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks.
    No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.

    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353669287718899713
    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
  • First? Good news for OGH. Lancashire storming ahead with vaccines.

    I have not lived in Lancashire since October 1964.
    Lucky you!
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,052
    edited January 2021
    MaxPB said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    There's more:

    https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1354484474545909766?s=20

    I wonder what the "good news from today" is?

    But Pfizer is an American company. They will not take illegal orders from the EU. America will not sit idly by as one of its biggest pharma companies is menaced.

    The EU is self-destructing.
    They are behaving as if it's existential for them.

    Tbh, it is a bit. If Brexit Britain is seen to be succeeding outside of the apparatus of the EU and it happens a few times it does rather bring into question why the EU exists in the first place. Especially for rich nations such as the Netherlands or Scandinavian ones which don't have pretensions of serious foreign policy objectives.
    I don't think it calls into question of why the EU exists.

    But its habit of grandiose f-ups (Common Agricultural Policy, the euro, Yugoslavia, regional aid corruption, now vaccines etc.) certainly calls into question why it needs to be anything more than a loose free-trade organisation.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    fpt
    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    btw where's @ydoethur (and others)?

    Why do schools need two weeks notice to reopen?

    BEcause it takes a long time to (1) prepare the testing regime they want and (2) we will need to replan all our lessons while still teaching remotely, which isn't easy. I've only just finished for today.
    Ah I see so they are expecting you to test?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,380

    Good news for over-70s in Bedford(?). Round here the over-80s have only just started receiving their appointment letters. Some disquiet as nearest centre is 15 miles away. But main feeling is relief that our seniors have finally got dates for their first jabs. Second vaccines all scheduled for April 2021. Overall I think this is positive for the govt.

    I take it you are in Wales.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    Leon said:
    WIthout wishing to belabour the point too much further, I cannot but help thing that they are rather cynically mixing up their anger at the AZ failure to deliver with intentionally provocative actions - let's say they are right about AZ 'having' to deliver, even if they physically cannot, can they know see they are demanding AZ breach contracts with others to do so, or do they not care?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,429
    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    There's more:

    https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1354484474545909766?s=20

    I wonder what the "good news from today" is?

    But Pfizer is an American company. They will not take illegal orders from the EU. America will not sit idly by as one of its biggest pharma companies is menaced.

    The EU is self-destructing.
    They are behaving as if it's existential for them.

    Tbh, it is a bit. If Brexit Britain is seen to be succeeding outside of the apparatus of the EU and it happens a few times it does rather bring into question why the EU exists in the first place. Especially for rich nations such as the Netherlands or Scandinavian ones which don't have pretensions of serious foreign policy objectives.
    I don't think it calls into question of why the EU exists.

    But its habit of grandiose f-ups (Common Agricultural Policy, the euro, Yugoslavia, regional aid corruption etc.) certainly calls into question why it needs to be anything more than a loose free-trade organisation.
    It's almost as if massive anti-democratic unelected bureaucracies, facing zero political pressure from voters, have no real incentive to get the big things right, because they will still get their huge wages, and cannot be voted out.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Leon said:
    As someone else said - I assume then if another country rocks up and asks for its fair share tomorrow the EU will be more than happy to hand over some of its allocation


  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,770
    I'll feel really happy if it turns out, as it seems, that the first big good gesture in the new UK-EU relationship is a big helping hand from the UK.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    There's more:

    https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1354484474545909766?s=20

    I wonder what the "good news from today" is?

    But Pfizer is an American company. They will not take illegal orders from the EU. America will not sit idly by as one of its biggest pharma companies is menaced.

    The EU is self-destructing.
    They are behaving as if it's existential for them.

    Tbh, it is a bit. If Brexit Britain is seen to be succeeding outside of the apparatus of the EU and it happens a few times it does rather bring into question why the EU exists in the first place. Especially for rich nations such as the Netherlands or Scandinavian ones which don't have pretensions of serious foreign policy objectives.
    I don't think it calls into question of why the EU exists.

    But its habit of grandiose f-ups (Common Agricultural Policy, the euro, Yugoslavia, regional aid corruption, now vaccines etc.) certainly calls into question why it needs to be anything more than a loose free-trade organisation.
    If they are able to develop to a situation where they do not react to criticism as attacking the institution and Union itself, which is certainly how their defensiveness comes across and why reform can be hard, then that would be a good outcome.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,893

    It will be interesting that if the vaccinations roll out is a success just how much credit Boris will receive despite the many earlier errors

    I do think the effort put in by the UK to develop a vaccine and source alternatives is commendable - I have doubts about the way the vaccination programme has been implemented but again the logistical success of getting large numbers vaccinated is undeniable and all those involved deserve credit.

    My fear is in the euphoria of the vaccinations and life getting back to the new normal people will want to forget what happened in 2020 and brush it under the mental carpet.

    There needs to be a proper process of scrutiny via an independent public enquiry to which Ministers including the Prime Minister would be compelled to give evidence. We have a right to know what happened and why it happened - when, for example, expert advice was ignored and why.

    The failure to close borders and the decision to send infected patients back into care homes are other areas where the public has a right to expect full scrutiny of Government at all levels.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    Probably pay for itself economically too.
  • kle4 said:

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    Probably pay for itself economically too.
    Yup.
  • Leon said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    There's more:

    https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1354484474545909766?s=20

    I wonder what the "good news from today" is?

    But Pfizer is an American company. They will not take illegal orders from the EU. America will not sit idly by as one of its biggest pharma companies is menaced.

    The EU is self-destructing.
    They are behaving as if it's existential for them.

    Tbh, it is a bit. If Brexit Britain is seen to be succeeding outside of the apparatus of the EU and it happens a few times it does rather bring into question why the EU exists in the first place. Especially for rich nations such as the Netherlands or Scandinavian ones which don't have pretensions of serious foreign policy objectives.
    I don't think it calls into question of why the EU exists.

    But its habit of grandiose f-ups (Common Agricultural Policy, the euro, Yugoslavia, regional aid corruption etc.) certainly calls into question why it needs to be anything more than a loose free-trade organisation.
    It's almost as if massive anti-democratic unelected bureaucracies, facing zero political pressure from voters, have no real incentive to get the big things right, because they will still get their huge wages, and cannot be voted out.
    But it wasn't just the Commission's error. The 27 EU countries voluntarily signed up to the joint procurement. They weren't obliged to do so. So voters do have the option to hold them to account.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    Omnium said:

    I'll feel really happy if it turns out, as it seems, that the first big good gesture in the new UK-EU relationship is a big helping hand from the UK.

    There's good reason to help RoI as we have a CTA with them.
  • Darren McCaffrey of Euro news just now

    Populations across the EU are looking at the UK and really questioning what the EU is doing, as thousands more Europeans are likely to die due to problems with vaccine supply

    He said that this will reverberate across the capitals in the EU and will escalate across in the EH over the coming weeks
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    I think that would be an excellent use of our foreign aid budget

  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,429
    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    There's more:

    https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1354484474545909766?s=20

    I wonder what the "good news from today" is?

    But Pfizer is an American company. They will not take illegal orders from the EU. America will not sit idly by as one of its biggest pharma companies is menaced.

    The EU is self-destructing.
    They are behaving as if it's existential for them.

    Tbh, it is a bit. If Brexit Britain is seen to be succeeding outside of the apparatus of the EU and it happens a few times it does rather bring into question why the EU exists in the first place. Especially for rich nations such as the Netherlands or Scandinavian ones which don't have pretensions of serious foreign policy objectives.
    I don't think it calls into question of why the EU exists.

    But its habit of grandiose f-ups (Common Agricultural Policy, the euro, Yugoslavia, regional aid corruption, now vaccines etc.) certainly calls into question why it needs to be anything more than a loose free-trade organisation.
    It could be mildly existential to the EU IF voters in individual countries perceive this as a huge fuck-up by the EU. If thousands start dying for lack of vaccines, thanks to the Commission's ineptitude, and insistence on meddling, then I don't see how Brussels can escape censure. Hence the EU's pathetic attempts to blame AZ.

    If they'd left the vaccine planning to the EU nations I'm sure lots of them would have done fine. But the Commission insisted it should be given the job. Ooops.

    It won't be the "success" of Brexit Britain that threatens EU stability, it will be the nature of the EU itself. Who would want to hand MORE power to this gormless, futile institution?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,380

    It will be interesting that if the vaccinations roll out is a success just how much credit Boris will receive despite the many earlier errors

    Credit where it is due.

    When we have all been vaccinated the real Prime Ministerial fun starts. Managing the post Covid economic performance. That might be trickier.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,355

    kle4 said:

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    Probably pay for itself economically too.
    Yup.
    What do you think the various vaccine plants in the UK will be doing in the second half of the year?

    I don't think that anyone is going to switch it all off, pull the dust sheets over the machinery and turn out the lights.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    btw where's @ydoethur (and others)?

    Why do schools need two weeks notice to reopen?

    BEcause it takes a long time to (1) prepare the testing regime they want and (2) we will need to replan all our lessons while still teaching remotely, which isn't easy. I've only just finished for today.
    Ah I see so they are expecting you to test?
    IT would appear so. In fact, we are meant to be testing all those in school at this moment.

    However, as the only thing that has been provided so far are gazillions of testing kits, no instructions, support, staff or extra space, without dramatic changes it will take time to have it ready for full schools.

    Incidentally, I think that is probably what switched them in the end to closing schools - it finally dawned on them that their testing system was going to fail spectacularly and cause an utter catastrophe.

    It probably still will do the former, but if we have a strong vaccination programme by the time schools start reopening the latter will be less of an issue.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,893
    RobD said:


    In two months we are going to be drowning in vaccines. I don't see it being a problem if an additional booster is required.

    A response which misses the point.

    We don't know how effective a single vaccination is after 40, 50 or 60 days. It may be it continues to provide strong immunity which would be fine but if it doesn't, we'll be back to square one having to re-vaccinate everyone.

    We don't even know how long immunity exists for those who have received two vaccinations in all honesty.

    I am convinced vaccines will rapidly evolve and improve so that, probably this year, we'll get a vaccine which provides 12 months or more of immunity with a single dose but we aren't there yet or rather we can't evidence we are there yet.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    I'd hope we'd do that anyway, to be honest.

    It's in all our interests for this virus to be quashed, globally.
  • Now for the antithesis of a glimmer of hope.

    The Department of Homeland Security issued a national terrorism alert warning that violent domestic extremists could attack in the coming weeks, emboldened by the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

    DHS, in an alert issued Wednesday, said violent extremists opposed to the government and the presidential transition “could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence,” though the department said it doesn’t have evidence of a specific plot.

    The DHS release was part of a public alert called a National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin.

    The alert is the department’s first in about a year. The last such bulletin from DHS came in January 2020, warning about Iran’s potential to carry out cyberattacks. DHS notably didn’t issue an alert ahead of the Jan. 6 planned rally in Washington, D.C. that devolved into a mob siege at the Capitol, despite public chatter online that extremists planned to do so.

    The alert described a series of factors in the recent past that have increased the potential for violence among U.S. extremists.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/dhs-issues-national-terrorism-alert-for-domestic-extremists-11611770893
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,932
    stodge said:

    RobD said:


    In two months we are going to be drowning in vaccines. I don't see it being a problem if an additional booster is required.

    A response which misses the point.

    We don't know how effective a single vaccination is after 40, 50 or 60 days. It may be it continues to provide strong immunity which would be fine but if it doesn't, we'll be back to square one having to re-vaccinate everyone.

    We don't even know how long immunity exists for those who have received two vaccinations in all honesty.

    I am convinced vaccines will rapidly evolve and improve so that, probably this year, we'll get a vaccine which provides 12 months or more of immunity with a single dose but we aren't there yet or rather we can't evidence we are there yet.
    It would be quite something if the efficacy dropped like a stone after three weeks. Is there any reason to suggest it would?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    And once the third world has been vaccinated, do we then offer to help the EU finally vaccinate its population?
  • We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    It wouldn't be fair to exclude countries like France from our aid programme, though.
  • kle4 said:

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    Probably pay for itself economically too.
    Yup.
    What do you think the various vaccine plants in the UK will be doing in the second half of the year?

    I don't think that anyone is going to switch it all off, pull the dust sheets over the machinery and turn out the lights.
    When I was jabbed yesterday the person doing the jabbing said he expected this to become an annual thing like the flu vaccine, so I'm guessing it'll be making that non stop.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    stodge said:

    It will be interesting that if the vaccinations roll out is a success just how much credit Boris will receive despite the many earlier errors

    I do think the effort put in by the UK to develop a vaccine and source alternatives is commendable - I have doubts about the way the vaccination programme has been implemented but again the logistical success of getting large numbers vaccinated is undeniable and all those involved deserve credit.

    My fear is in the euphoria of the vaccinations and life getting back to the new normal people will want to forget what happened in 2020 and brush it under the mental carpet.

    There needs to be a proper process of scrutiny via an independent public enquiry to which Ministers including the Prime Minister would be compelled to give evidence. We have a right to know what happened and why it happened - when, for example, expert advice was ignored and why.

    The failure to close borders and the decision to send infected patients back into care homes are other areas where the public has a right to expect full scrutiny of Government at all levels.
    I really don't think this will be brushed under the carpet. Some 150000 or so may have died by the time we reach May or June, there will be obsessive investigation into all aspects of this.

    I do have doubts that anything useful will be learned politically or governmentallly. There will be decisions wrong in hindsight which were reasonable at the time, and decisions wrong even without hindsight and which were not reasonable at the time, but distinction won't be made.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487

    kle4 said:

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    Probably pay for itself economically too.
    Yup.
    What do you think the various vaccine plants in the UK will be doing in the second half of the year?

    I don't think that anyone is going to switch it all off, pull the dust sheets over the machinery and turn out the lights.
    When I was jabbed yesterday the person doing the jabbing said he expected this to become an annual thing like the flu vaccine, so I'm guessing it'll be making that non stop.
    I think that's probably right.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    btw where's @ydoethur (and others)?

    Why do schools need two weeks notice to reopen?

    BEcause it takes a long time to (1) prepare the testing regime they want and (2) we will need to replan all our lessons while still teaching remotely, which isn't easy. I've only just finished for today.
    Ah I see so they are expecting you to test?
    IT would appear so. In fact, we are meant to be testing all those in school at this moment.

    However, as the only thing that has been provided so far are gazillions of testing kits, no instructions, support, staff or extra space, without dramatic changes it will take time to have it ready for full schools.

    Incidentally, I think that is probably what switched them in the end to closing schools - it finally dawned on them that their testing system was going to fail spectacularly and cause an utter catastrophe.

    It probably still will do the former, but if we have a strong vaccination programme by the time schools start reopening the latter will be less of an issue.
    When do you think schools should open?
  • We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    It wouldn't be fair to exclude countries like France from our aid programme, though.
    I've made it clear France can go to the head of the queue if they honour the Treaty of Troyes.
  • We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    I'd hope we'd do that anyway, to be honest.

    It's in all our interests for this virus to be quashed, globally.
    The PM is cutting the International Aid budget.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,421

    kle4 said:

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    Probably pay for itself economically too.
    Yup.
    What do you think the various vaccine plants in the UK will be doing in the second half of the year?

    I don't think that anyone is going to switch it all off, pull the dust sheets over the machinery and turn out the lights.
    Well, the worst-case scenario is that they will be churning out modified vaccines for new strains that had mutated into being. So I hope we have relevant contractual contingencies in place.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Good news for over-70s in Bedford(?). Round here the over-80s have only just started receiving their appointment letters. Some disquiet as nearest centre is 15 miles away. But main feeling is relief that our seniors have finally got dates for their first jabs. Second vaccines all scheduled for April 2021. Overall I think this is positive for the govt.

    I have pre-existing conditions.
  • Mary_BattyMary_Batty Posts: 630
    edited January 2021

    FPT

    MaxPB said:


    ...
    This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.

    Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
    Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
    Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
    What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.

    Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
    No, months is accurate.

    The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.

    Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
    No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.

    To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.

    Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same.
    If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
    Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.

    They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
    December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2%
    January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.

    Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU
    So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.

    So yes, in actual fact, the paths for the limited amount of data we have map very well to a 3 week lag.
    See for yourself:
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1354456494578819079

    Just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks.
    No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.

    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353669287718899713
    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
    You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.

    To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling.
    If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126

    FPT

    MaxPB said:


    ...
    This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.

    Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
    Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
    Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
    What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.

    Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
    No, months is accurate.

    The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.

    Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
    No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.

    To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.

    Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same.
    If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
    Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.

    They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
    December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2%
    January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.

    Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU
    So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.

    So yes, in actual fact, the paths for the limited amount of data we have map very well to a 3 week lag.
    See for yourself:
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1354456494578819079

    Just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks.
    No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.

    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353669287718899713
    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
    You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.

    To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling.
    If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
    Surely with France, Spain, Germany and Italy included you can make a pretty decent educated guess about the overall trajectory? This is in casual analogy territory.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,671

    kle4 said:

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    Probably pay for itself economically too.
    Yup.
    What do you think the various vaccine plants in the UK will be doing in the second half of the year?

    I don't think that anyone is going to switch it all off, pull the dust sheets over the machinery and turn out the lights.
    Making the next vaccine for the escaped variant...
  • eekeek Posts: 28,397

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    I'd hope we'd do that anyway, to be honest.

    It's in all our interests for this virus to be quashed, globally.
    The PM is cutting the International Aid budget.
    Only by a mere 70% with a 3 week deadline to decide what embassies would prefer to be cut.

    I'm sure I reported that yesterday.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,350
    FPT @Omnium

    malcolmg said:

    Hand to hand combat here............. brave man goes for all or nothing
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-sworn-evidence-on-the-sturgeon-affair/

    What's your thinking on this?

    I'm hugely pissed off with Scottish politics at the moment. But that aside I quite like both Sturgeon and Salmond. I was shocked that the BBC allowed Kirsty Wark free reign to mount a televised assassination of the latter.

    My guess is that Salmond has just proved himself to be 'of the last century' and that Sturgeon has proved herself to be complacent.
    Flag Quote · Off Topic Like

    Yes it looks like a cesspit. Looks like those running the SNP and Civil Service in their desperation to join the METO# brigade , rigged their new procedure to specifically catch one person who was going to make a political comeback. They had a crowd of pals big up a few snogs , compliments , etc, even making some up etc to get him but made a mess and Salmond slaughtered them , so they thought they would get police charges to stop him and messed it up even more as he was cleared. Now fighting rearguard to hide all the evidence and using tame crown etc to have all hidden. You could not make it up , they are nearly as bent as the Tories. Unless they can whitewash the inquiry and brass it out then heads will fall. More and more leaking out so can only be a matter of time, so unless they can hold on , win election and have a referendum in short order , then Murrell towers will be bulldozed.
    Hardly a squeak from unionist press on it either.
    As you say Salmond may have been a man of the 70's and Sturgeon has made a real mess with all the feminist crap and Meto stuff , is just crazy.
    Too many professional agitators in SNP at the top , interested in their hobby horses and big salaries rather than independence. Must be a clear out soon , May is last chance saloon.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,477

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    It's a good point, but I genuinely think we should help the ROI first, for the following reasons:
    -They have probably suffered a good deal by their proximity and lack of a border with the UK
    -It would be of enormous benefit to have them come through Covid quickly due to their proximity and lack of border with the UK
    -It would also annoy the EU, a lot
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    Now for the antithesis of a glimmer of hope.

    The Department of Homeland Security issued a national terrorism alert warning that violent domestic extremists could attack in the coming weeks, emboldened by the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

    DHS, in an alert issued Wednesday, said violent extremists opposed to the government and the presidential transition “could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence,” though the department said it doesn’t have evidence of a specific plot.

    The DHS release was part of a public alert called a National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin.

    The alert is the department’s first in about a year. The last such bulletin from DHS came in January 2020, warning about Iran’s potential to carry out cyberattacks. DHS notably didn’t issue an alert ahead of the Jan. 6 planned rally in Washington, D.C. that devolved into a mob siege at the Capitol, despite public chatter online that extremists planned to do so.

    The alert described a series of factors in the recent past that have increased the potential for violence among U.S. extremists.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/dhs-issues-national-terrorism-alert-for-domestic-extremists-11611770893

    That explains why the National Guard remains deployed until into March
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,770

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    I'd hope we'd do that anyway, to be honest.

    It's in all our interests for this virus to be quashed, globally.
    The PM is cutting the International Aid budget.
    How effective is that money though? I know there are some claims that it's fantastically (like 70%) effective. I'd be closer to 10%.

    If you stick that money into producing vaccine does though, and they're handed out - I think temporarily this is a better use.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,350

    It will be interesting that if the vaccinations roll out is a success just how much credit Boris will receive despite the many earlier errors

    He has no hope of redemption G, too many dead and dying for him to ever be seen as anything other than an unmitigated disaster.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    malcolmg said:

    FPT @Omnium

    malcolmg said:

    Hand to hand combat here............. brave man goes for all or nothing
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-sworn-evidence-on-the-sturgeon-affair/

    What's your thinking on this?

    I'm hugely pissed off with Scottish politics at the moment. But that aside I quite like both Sturgeon and Salmond. I was shocked that the BBC allowed Kirsty Wark free reign to mount a televised assassination of the latter.

    My guess is that Salmond has just proved himself to be 'of the last century' and that Sturgeon has proved herself to be complacent.
    Flag Quote · Off Topic Like

    Yes it looks like a cesspit. Looks like those running the SNP and Civil Service in their desperation to join the METO# brigade , rigged their new procedure to specifically catch one person who was going to make a political comeback. They had a crowd of pals big up a few snogs , compliments , etc, even making some up etc to get him but made a mess and Salmond slaughtered them , so they thought they would get police charges to stop him and messed it up even more as he was cleared. Now fighting rearguard to hide all the evidence and using tame crown etc to have all hidden. You could not make it up , they are nearly as bent as the Tories. Unless they can whitewash the inquiry and brass it out then heads will fall. More and more leaking out so can only be a matter of time, so unless they can hold on , win election and have a referendum in short order , then Murrell towers will be bulldozed.
    Hardly a squeak from unionist press on it either.
    As you say Salmond may have been a man of the 70's and Sturgeon has made a real mess with all the feminist crap and Meto stuff , is just crazy.
    Too many professional agitators in SNP at the top , interested in their hobby horses and big salaries rather than independence. Must be a clear out soon , May is last chance saloon.

    For god's sake Malc one of my lockdown reading tasks is to make progress in Finnegan's Wake. I come on here for a bit of light relief not the appendix.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    MaxPB said:

    geoffw said:

    Leon said:

    There's more:

    https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1354484474545909766?s=20

    I wonder what the "good news from today" is?

    But Pfizer is an American company. They will not take illegal orders from the EU. America will not sit idly by as one of its biggest pharma companies is menaced.

    The EU is self-destructing.
    They are behaving as if it's existential for them.

    Tbh, it is a bit. If Brexit Britain is seen to be succeeding outside of the apparatus of the EU and it happens a few times it does rather bring into question why the EU exists in the first place. Especially for rich nations such as the Netherlands or Scandinavian ones which don't have pretensions of serious foreign policy objectives.
    There is definitively a case for the EU (pooling resources, strength in numbers, free movement across closely interwoven and landlocked borders, integrated economies and efficiencies of scale, ending petty historical rivalries, sharing currency where it make sense, stopping countries like Luxembourg and Belgium becoming countries that are prised apart and picked over by vultures like China and Russia etc.)

    Where they go wrong is their dogma; they can't conceive of *any* alternative model within the continent of the Europe, and view it as an affront to their dream of a United Europe.

    Rather than taking such a negative and absolutist view - and allowing only one permitted model, the EU, to exist - they'd do far better to let the positive case make itself for those it'd benefit over the alternatives, and otherwise welcome the regulatory and political diversity. Where that'd end up, of course, is a couple of outer rings, of varying levels of integration, and an inner core, with some countries occasionally moving from one to the other - and I don't see any issue with that.

    It'd make Europe a stronger and happier place overall.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,875
    edited January 2021
    FPT
    sarissa said:

    Wish I’d saved the original when I read it this afternoon - would have been interested to see where the added redactions are.
    https://tabithatroughton.wordpress.com/2021/01/27/hma-vs-craig-john-murray-in-the-court-of-appeals-27-january/

    Report of Mr M's trial - insofar as it has gone. Will be interesting to see the written judgement in due course.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,335

    Speaking with some people in the last week they suspect the vaccine operation is drip feeding in to keep a constant tempo whilst managing supply of the AZ vaccine. General practice seems to be having it tougher on supply than hospital based vaccination centres mainly because they are all AZ, whilst I'd guess the hospitals can manage the quirks of the Pfizer stuff.

    What I have also found is that if you know right people you can get onto a hospital based vaccination list with a fairly loose definition of why you should be getting one now. This corresponds with something I reported before Christmas that people within the NHS who had no need were getting themselves on the lists. How widespread this is difficult to say, you hope not massively but there appears no real shortage of the stuff at your local General.

    As regards our wee friends in the EU. I have no problem with them stating their own interests but they are making a lot of demand on a vaccine that they haven't approved yet and I suspect they don't know contract law as well their supplier. The AZ vaccine, even more than here, was the cornerstone of the EU strategy so a slow/low supply is a problem. From what I can see there is an AZ EU supply chain, it involves Novasep in Belgium and they have problems though not clear if its their active product operation or their fill operation. Did the UK get some of Novaseps product? I bet it did, because the UK approved it early and AZ do not want to be storing the frozen active product for too long before going to filling, so they shipped it.

    If EMA have concerns about AZ (and it looks like some questions are legitimate to ask) they seem remarkably antsy about not getting the stuff. Thus I suspect they will have to wait. We know that Pfizer & Moderna cant really fill the gap over the next 3 months so its AZ or bust because AZ have more ramp for volume. I will not be surprised if some factory somewhere in Europe that can manufacture active ingredient signs off with AZ similar to Sanofi with Pfizer thus providing a win that the EU has strengthened its own supply chain.

    Maybe somebody should have watched Berlin. It made an agreement with Pfizer over the EUs head and went off and bought some of that expensive anti viral treatment. EU unity? my arse, they took matters into their own hands you assume because they saw things through their own eye and out their situation first.



  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Jersey reports reduced Pfizer vaccine supply in February.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,671
    AlistairM said:
    You'd have thought they'd understand towels on the deck-chairs though...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,204
    RobD said:

    stodge said:

    RobD said:


    In two months we are going to be drowning in vaccines. I don't see it being a problem if an additional booster is required.

    A response which misses the point.

    We don't know how effective a single vaccination is after 40, 50 or 60 days. It may be it continues to provide strong immunity which would be fine but if it doesn't, we'll be back to square one having to re-vaccinate everyone.

    We don't even know how long immunity exists for those who have received two vaccinations in all honesty.

    I am convinced vaccines will rapidly evolve and improve so that, probably this year, we'll get a vaccine which provides 12 months or more of immunity with a single dose but we aren't there yet or rather we can't evidence we are there yet.
    It would be quite something if the efficacy dropped like a stone after three weeks. Is there any reason to suggest it would?
    No there isn't. And as a general point, just because something was not specifically covered in the trials does not preclude the subject matter experts making a reasonable deduction based on theoretical knowledge and probabilities. For example, the trials gave no direct proof the vaccine will not cause long term heart problems. Does this mean we "just don't know" whether they will, or should be seriously worried they might? No. We are justifiably, based on theory and probability, very very confident that they won't. There is no need to invoke complex reasoning for this. It's obvious.
  • First? Good news for OGH. Lancashire storming ahead with vaccines.

    I have not lived in Lancashire since October 1964.
    Quite - you'd have been vaccinated here probably 10-12 days ago.
  • Mary_BattyMary_Batty Posts: 630
    edited January 2021
    kle4 said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:


    ...
    This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.

    Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
    Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
    Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
    What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.

    Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
    No, months is accurate.

    The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.

    Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
    No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.

    To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.

    Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same.
    If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
    Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.

    They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
    December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2%
    January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.

    Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU
    So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.

    So yes, in actual fact, the paths for the limited amount of data we have map very well to a 3 week lag.
    See for yourself:
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1354456494578819079

    Just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks.
    No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.

    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353669287718899713
    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
    You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.

    To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling.
    If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
    Surely with France, Spain, Germany and Italy included you can make a pretty decent educated guess about the overall trajectory? This is in casual analogy territory.
    We don't need to... the graph on the previous thread showed exactly what we're talking about, which is that the past two weeks EU coverage and slope match the UK's coverage and slope over the two weeks to the 3rd January.
    What I'm saying is indisputable. Quite a few people have argued against things I am not saying, which is a nuisance but easily answered.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    I'd hope we'd do that anyway, to be honest.

    It's in all our interests for this virus to be quashed, globally.
    The PM is cutting the International Aid budget.
    The % of GDP we spend on International Aid is a distraction.

    We should spend what it takes to roll out this vaccine quickly and effectively.

    If AZ shots cost £3 (let's double it to £6 for global supply, distribution, delivery and roll-out costs) and we want to help 3 billion people - and I'll add 15% admin / management overhead on top of that for good measure - then the whole programme would be £21bn over 12 months (+/-20% MoE), and a one-off doubling of the international aid budget would do it.

    I think it'd be packaged differently, however, because it's essentially an investment in rebooting the world economy and a bargain at twice the price.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,397
    Omnium said:

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    I'd hope we'd do that anyway, to be honest.

    It's in all our interests for this virus to be quashed, globally.
    The PM is cutting the International Aid budget.
    How effective is that money though? I know there are some claims that it's fantastically (like 70%) effective. I'd be closer to 10%.

    If you stick that money into producing vaccine does though, and they're handed out - I think temporarily this is a better use.

    The problem is that we are actually very effective at spending the money well - we know what works and what doesn’t and seemingly know far better than aid agencies how to avoid wasting money.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    edited January 2021

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:


    ...
    This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.

    Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
    Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
    Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
    What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.

    Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
    No, months is accurate.

    The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.

    Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
    No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.

    To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.

    Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same.
    If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
    Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.

    They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
    December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2%
    January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.

    Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU
    So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.

    So yes, in actual fact, the paths for the limited amount of data we have map very well to a 3 week lag.
    See for yourself:
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1354456494578819079

    Just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks.
    No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.

    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353669287718899713
    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
    You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.

    To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling.
    If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
    Surely with France, Spain, Germany and Italy included you can make a pretty decent educated guess about the overall trajectory? This is in casual analogy territory.
    We don't need to... the graph on the previous thread showed exactly what we're talking about, which is that the past two weeks EU coverage and slope match the UK's coverage and slope over the two weeks to the 3rd January.
    What I'm saying is indisputable. Quite a few people have argued against things I am not saying which is a nuisance, but easily answered.
    But you are seeming to suggest there is an equal chance that the slope will or will not remain the same from now on as if there is no way to predict if that will be the case, when there does appear to be reason to think will not is a higher probability than will.

    If that is not what you are suggesting then why are so you focusing, HYUFD like, on a single sapect and not the wider situation?

    Since others are talking about the future, and you are only talking about the past, that would mean you are also arguing against things people are not arguing.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:


    ...
    This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.

    Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
    Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
    Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
    What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.

    Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
    No, months is accurate.

    The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.

    Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
    No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.

    To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.

    Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same.
    If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
    Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.

    They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
    December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2%
    January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.

    Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU
    So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.

    So yes, in actual fact, the paths for the limited amount of data we have map very well to a 3 week lag.
    See for yourself:
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1354456494578819079

    Just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks.
    No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.

    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353669287718899713
    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
    You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.

    To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling.
    If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
    Surely with France, Spain, Germany and Italy included you can make a pretty decent educated guess about the overall trajectory? This is in casual analogy territory.
    We don't need to... the graph on the previous thread showed exactly what we're talking about, which is that the past two weeks EU coverage and slope match the UK's coverage and slope over the two weeks to the 3rd January.
    What I'm saying is indisputable. Quite a few people have argued against things I am not saying, which is a nuisance but easily answered.
    What you're saying is that the EU is currently three weeks behind the UK.

    The proof you're using is that, three weeks ago, the EU was three weeks behind the UK.

    These are not equivalent.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,671

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    I'd hope we'd do that anyway, to be honest.

    It's in all our interests for this virus to be quashed, globally.
    The PM is cutting the International Aid budget.
    The % of GDP we spend on International Aid is a distraction.

    We should spend what it takes to roll out this vaccine quickly and effectively.

    If AZ shots cost £3 (let's double it to £6 for global supply, distribution, delivery and roll-out costs) and we want to help 3 billion people - and I'll add 15% admin / management overhead on top of that for good measure - then the whole programme would be £21bn over 12 months (+/-20% MoE), and a one-off doubling of the international aid budget would do it.

    I think it'd be packaged differently, however, because it's essentially an investment in rebooting the world economy and a bargain at twice the price.
    Is it not more likely that the Indian manufacturer will have the bulk capacity rather than AZ?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,234
    Endillion said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:


    ...
    This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.

    Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
    Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
    Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
    What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.

    Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
    No, months is accurate.

    The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.

    Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
    No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.

    To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.

    Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same.
    If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
    Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.

    They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
    December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2%
    January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.

    Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU
    So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.

    So yes, in actual fact, the paths for the limited amount of data we have map very well to a 3 week lag.
    See for yourself:
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1354456494578819079

    Just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks.
    No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.

    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353669287718899713
    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
    You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.

    To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling.
    If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
    Surely with France, Spain, Germany and Italy included you can make a pretty decent educated guess about the overall trajectory? This is in casual analogy territory.
    We don't need to... the graph on the previous thread showed exactly what we're talking about, which is that the past two weeks EU coverage and slope match the UK's coverage and slope over the two weeks to the 3rd January.
    What I'm saying is indisputable. Quite a few people have argued against things I am not saying, which is a nuisance but easily answered.
    What you're saying is that the EU is currently three weeks behind the UK.

    The proof you're using is that, three weeks ago, the EU was three weeks behind the UK.

    These are not equivalent.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jaAgAFLtL0
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,770
    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    I'd hope we'd do that anyway, to be honest.

    It's in all our interests for this virus to be quashed, globally.
    The PM is cutting the International Aid budget.
    How effective is that money though? I know there are some claims that it's fantastically (like 70%) effective. I'd be closer to 10%.

    If you stick that money into producing vaccine does though, and they're handed out - I think temporarily this is a better use.

    The problem is that we are actually very effective at spending the money well - we know what works and what doesn’t and seemingly know far better than aid agencies how to avoid wasting money.

    The aid budget is spent fantastically poorly. I know all sorts of studies have suggested otherwise, but there is no other plausible source of wealth for some bad people with swiss bank accounts.
  • Endillion said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:


    ...
    This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.

    Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
    Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
    Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
    What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.

    Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
    No, months is accurate.

    The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.

    Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
    No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.

    To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.

    Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same.
    If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
    Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.

    They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
    December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2%
    January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.

    Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU
    So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.

    So yes, in actual fact, the paths for the limited amount of data we have map very well to a 3 week lag.
    See for yourself:
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1354456494578819079

    Just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks.
    No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.

    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353669287718899713
    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
    You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.

    To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling.
    If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
    Surely with France, Spain, Germany and Italy included you can make a pretty decent educated guess about the overall trajectory? This is in casual analogy territory.
    We don't need to... the graph on the previous thread showed exactly what we're talking about, which is that the past two weeks EU coverage and slope match the UK's coverage and slope over the two weeks to the 3rd January.
    What I'm saying is indisputable. Quite a few people have argued against things I am not saying, which is a nuisance but easily answered.
    What you're saying is that the EU is currently three weeks behind the UK.

    The proof you're using is that, three weeks ago, the EU was three weeks behind the UK.

    These are not equivalent.
    No, I am saying that the EU is where the UK was three weeks ago. And two weeks ago the EU was where the UK was 5 weeks ago.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    I do rather worry that this is going to start off with the EU blaming AstraZeneca, but end up with the EU scapegoating the UK.

    The path between the two scenarios is very short. AZ digs its heels in, EU goes direct to UK Government and demands diversion of production, Johnson refuses, EU condemns UK for being selfish and blames us for their suffering (along with using this as an excuse to confiscate our Pfizer orders and use them itself to plug the gaps that its own lethargy has created.)

    I'm not sure how far we can trust the Commission but I do think that they must be desperate. A serious confrontation cannot, presumably, be ruled out.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:


    ...
    This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.

    Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
    Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
    Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
    What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.

    Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
    No, months is accurate.

    The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.

    Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
    No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.

    To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.

    Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same.
    If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
    Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.

    They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
    December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2%
    January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.

    Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU
    So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.

    So yes, in actual fact, the paths for the limited amount of data we have map very well to a 3 week lag.
    See for yourself:
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1354456494578819079

    Just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks.
    No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.

    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353669287718899713
    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
    You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.

    To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling.
    If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
    Surely with France, Spain, Germany and Italy included you can make a pretty decent educated guess about the overall trajectory? This is in casual analogy territory.
    We don't need to... the graph on the previous thread showed exactly what we're talking about, which is that the past two weeks EU coverage and slope match the UK's coverage and slope over the two weeks to the 3rd January.
    What I'm saying is indisputable. Quite a few people have argued against things I am not saying which is a nuisance, but easily answered.
    But you are seeming to suggest there is an equal chance that the slope will or will not remain the same from now on as if there is no way to predict if that will be the case, when there does appear to be reason to think will not is a higher probability than will.

    If that is not what you are suggesting then why are so you focusing, HYUFD like, on a single sapect and not the wider situation?

    Since others are talking about the future, and you are only talking about the past, that would mean you are also arguing against things people are not arguing.
    I have specifically and repeatedly said that I am not projecting or predicting.
    My entire argument has been that the data that is in so far shows a three week lag. Nothing more.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,350
    TOPPING said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT @Omnium

    malcolmg said:

    Hand to hand combat here............. brave man goes for all or nothing
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-sworn-evidence-on-the-sturgeon-affair/

    What's your thinking on this?

    I'm hugely pissed off with Scottish politics at the moment. But that aside I quite like both Sturgeon and Salmond. I was shocked that the BBC allowed Kirsty Wark free reign to mount a televised assassination of the latter.

    My guess is that Salmond has just proved himself to be 'of the last century' and that Sturgeon has proved herself to be complacent.
    Flag Quote · Off Topic Like

    Yes it looks like a cesspit. Looks like those running the SNP and Civil Service in their desperation to join the METO# brigade , rigged their new procedure to specifically catch one person who was going to make a political comeback. They had a crowd of pals big up a few snogs , compliments , etc, even making some up etc to get him but made a mess and Salmond slaughtered them , so they thought they would get police charges to stop him and messed it up even more as he was cleared. Now fighting rearguard to hide all the evidence and using tame crown etc to have all hidden. You could not make it up , they are nearly as bent as the Tories. Unless they can whitewash the inquiry and brass it out then heads will fall. More and more leaking out so can only be a matter of time, so unless they can hold on , win election and have a referendum in short order , then Murrell towers will be bulldozed.
    Hardly a squeak from unionist press on it either.
    As you say Salmond may have been a man of the 70's and Sturgeon has made a real mess with all the feminist crap and Meto stuff , is just crazy.
    Too many professional agitators in SNP at the top , interested in their hobby horses and big salaries rather than independence. Must be a clear out soon , May is last chance saloon.

    For god's sake Malc one of my lockdown reading tasks is to make progress in Finnegan's Wake. I come on here for a bit of light relief not the appendix.
    :D
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,932

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:


    ...
    This whole thing was so predictable when the commission took everything over, the lack of production subsidies is really what the issue is in the EU. Both the UK and US took a proactive approach and subsidised it's industries to ensure domestic supply and eventually oversupply. The EU relied on the free market, it was the wrong approach and instead of fixing the original problem they are making threats.

    Yes, I think that is the crucial point. The UK (and I think also the US with Operation Warp Speed) took a gamble early on by putting money into production capacity without knowing whether the vaccines would actually work and be safe. It was a well-judged gamble (thanks, Kate Bingham) which has been spectacularly successful. At worst, we might have wasted a few hundred million quid, but that's nothing in the context of this pandemic, and as it has turned out, we've gained months. The EU was very late to that game, and is now unfortunately left behind.
    Months? AIUI, the EU is three weeks behind as of the most recent data. 2% as of 24th January, versus the UK's 2% as of 3rd January.
    Yes, but the running rate in the UK is now miles faster, and will stay that way for some time.
    What matters in terms of how far behind is the UK's current rate versus the EU's rate in 3 weeks. If the EU curve has the same shape as the UK's it will remain 3 weeks behind. Steeper, it will be less behind, and shallower, further. I don't know what the coming weeks will hold for vaccination rates, but the fairest metric today is 3 weeks.

    Obviously the EU's not going to overtake the UK's vaccinations (by proportion of population vaccinated) anytime soon, probably ever. But "months behind" is probably an exaggeration right now.
    No, months is accurate.

    The question to ask is at what point they will reach the stage where we are today. 3 weeks ago they were 3 weeks behind, as they've only just caught up with where we were 3 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean they're still 3 weeks behind now. Unless something dramatically changes they're going to take months now to catch up to >10 doses per 100 people.

    Two trains set off from the same location, one travelling at 60 miles per hour, one travelling at 30 miles an hour. After an hour train one has travelled 60 miles. By the time train 2 has travelled 60 miles, train 1 has now travelled 120 miles; train 2 is now 60 miles behind car, which is 2 hours behind - not half an hour or one hour.
    No, you're wrong, sorry. If a train leaves half an hour after another one and follows the same acceleration curve, it will always be half an hour behind. The distance will keep getting larger, but the lag remains constant.

    To put it another way, if you drop two tennis balls off a cliff a second apart, they will land a second apart. The gap in height will continue to get larger until the first one bounces, but the lag is the same.

    Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the acceleration curves will remain the same.. I'm not projecting forwards. I'm just saying that IF the rates track the same, then the lag stays the same.
    If the UK or the EU runs into stronger supply, delivery, or demand headwinds, the lag will definitely change. But on banked data so far, it looks the same.
    Except they're not following the same acceleration curve so that's not relevant.

    They're already significantly behind our curve, from where we were at the same point, and the gap is accelerating. If they were keeping track with us but offset you'd have a point but they're not. On banked data they're not following our path.
    December 20th - January 3rd (2 weeks) UK went from 1% to 2%
    January 11th - January 25th (2 weeks) EU went from (just under) 1% to 2%.

    Same delta time, slightly higher delta N for the EU
    So the EU is increasing its coverage by 0.5 percentage points per week. Three weeks ago, the UK was doing the exactly the same.

    So yes, in actual fact, the paths for the limited amount of data we have map very well to a 3 week lag.
    See for yourself:
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1354456494578819079

    Just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks.
    No you can't just shift the EU line left by 3 weeks. You're making the mistake of eyeballing the data, which is scaled, rather than actually doing it. Actually do it and the EU is clearly not following the same path.

    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353669287718899713
    https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
    You can't uses doses per capita by country graphs like that to talk about the overall EU rate because the populations of those countries are so different. For example, Ireland descending and France ascending on roughly opposite slopes represents an increase overall, because the population of France is so much larger.

    To go back to the tennis ball analogy, if you spin a tennis ball as you drop it, part of the tennis ball's surface might actually be rising, even as the ball en masse is falling.
    If you want to compare EU and UK rates, you first have to aggregate both internally, then compare them.
    Surely with France, Spain, Germany and Italy included you can make a pretty decent educated guess about the overall trajectory? This is in casual analogy territory.
    We don't need to... the graph on the previous thread showed exactly what we're talking about, which is that the past two weeks EU coverage and slope match the UK's coverage and slope over the two weeks to the 3rd January.
    What I'm saying is indisputable. Quite a few people have argued against things I am not saying which is a nuisance, but easily answered.
    But you are seeming to suggest there is an equal chance that the slope will or will not remain the same from now on as if there is no way to predict if that will be the case, when there does appear to be reason to think will not is a higher probability than will.

    If that is not what you are suggesting then why are so you focusing, HYUFD like, on a single sapect and not the wider situation?

    Since others are talking about the future, and you are only talking about the past, that would mean you are also arguing against things people are not arguing.
    I have specifically and repeatedly said that I am not projecting or predicting.
    My entire argument has been that the data that is in so far shows a three week lag. Nothing more.
    Highly unlikely that will continue, given the obvious supply issues on their side.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599

    We should quadruple our International Aid budget and vaccinate the third world.

    Morally and PR wise it would be the right thing to do.

    Brexiteers you can back this as it would annoy the EU so much.

    I stand by my suggestion from earlier in the week that, one we are done in the UK, we should start sending spare vaccines to the EU in clearly marked boxes - “🇬🇧UK Aid 🇬🇧 Vaccinating the Developing World 🇬🇧”

    But yes we should certainly help out Ireland first, then anyone else who needs them. It’s in everyone’s interest for this damn thing to disappear as quickly as possible.
This discussion has been closed.