Yesterday I got up to read the overnight discussion about Trump and impeachment, seeing many PB'ers arguing against pressing too hard on the trial and some suggesting Trump should be allowed to walk away in the interests of national healing.
Such sympathy and understanding seems strangely absent from last night's discussion when it comes to the hapless footsoldiers who Trump duped into his dirty work.
A bunch of hedge funds made big bets that the price of GameStop would fall. They did this by finding people who had shares in it, and saying "excuse me, could I borrow your shares of GameStop, and I'll pay you interest to do so". After they borrowed the shares, they sold them.
The idea being that - in the future - they would buy the shares back at a lower price and sell them back.
This is known as "short selling".
GameStop is a failing firm, being destroyed by Amazon and digital distribution of games.
Hedge funds felt that betting on its shares going down in price was a sure thing.
However, a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together they could engineer something called a "short squeeze", where the price of the shares would rise, and this would force the hedge funds to buy back (to "cover their shorts") at higher prices. And it's worked. The price of GameStop, which was something like $2.50 in the middle of last year, got up to $380 earlier today.
Some hedge funds hand lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Quite a few day traders have made good money.
And the (current) price of GameStop is completely irrational. This is a loss making, sales falling, doomed business, that is currently worth about the same as the highly profitable, operates mobile phone networks in about 20 countries, Vodafone.
(Disclaimer: today the price of out the money calls on GameStop got so ridiculous, I decided to play too, and sold some myself.)
Yesterday I got up to read the overnight discussion about Trump and impeachment, seeing many PB'ers arguing against pressing too hard on the trial and some suggesting Trump should be allowed to walk away in the interests of national healing.
Such sympathy and understanding seems strangely absent from last night's discussion when it comes to the hapless footsoldiers who Trump duped into his dirty work.
Yesterday I got up to read the overnight discussion about Trump and impeachment, seeing many PB'ers arguing against pressing too hard on the trial and some suggesting Trump should be allowed to walk away in the interests of national healing.
Such sympathy and understanding seems strangely absent from last night's discussion when it comes to the hapless footsoldiers who Trump duped into his dirty work.
War is entirely reliant on duped hapless footsoldiers, prepared to risk their all for a cause.
I have sympathy for a granny from East Bumfuck, Idaho, wandering in awe around the Capitol clutching her little Stars and Stripes. But would she have tried to stop the lynching of the Vice President? Just by being there, she and hundreds like her may have blocked the way of those who would have tried.
Cross the line - and the American state is a very unforgiving place. It will be a sympathy-free zone.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
Yesterday I got up to read the overnight discussion about Trump and impeachment, seeing many PB'ers arguing against pressing too hard on the trial and some suggesting Trump should be allowed to walk away in the interests of national healing.
Such sympathy and understanding seems strangely absent from last night's discussion when it comes to the hapless footsoldiers who Trump duped into his dirty work.
War is entirely reliant on duped hapless footsoldiers, prepared to risk their all for a cause.
I have sympathy for a granny from East Bumfuck, Idaho, wandering in awe around the Capitol clutching her little Stars and Stripes. But would she have tried to stop the lynching of the Vice President? Just by being there, she and hundreds like her may have blocked the way of those who would have tried.
Cross the line - and the American state is a very unforgiving place. It will be a sympathy-free zone.
The same logic applies to dealing with the ringleader(s)
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
Yesterday I got up to read the overnight discussion about Trump and impeachment, seeing many PB'ers arguing against pressing too hard on the trial and some suggesting Trump should be allowed to walk away in the interests of national healing.
Such sympathy and understanding seems strangely absent from last night's discussion when it comes to the hapless footsoldiers who Trump duped into his dirty work.
War is entirely reliant on duped hapless footsoldiers, prepared to risk their all for a cause.
I have sympathy for a granny from East Bumfuck, Idaho, wandering in awe around the Capitol clutching her little Stars and Stripes. But would she have tried to stop the lynching of the Vice President? Just by being there, she and hundreds like her may have blocked the way of those who would have tried.
Cross the line - and the American state is a very unforgiving place. It will be a sympathy-free zone.
Plus it doesn't seem like the FBI are particularly interested in flag waving grannies.
They've got a litany of digital evidence of who was planning sedition - who was planning to murder the politicians in the building - and are rounding them up and filing cases against them.
Funnily enough if you announce you're going to kill Vice President Mike Pence, then you're caught red handed in a storming of the Capitol Building, then the FBI are more capable of connecting the dots.
All these idiots who thought they were being big and clever online - the FBI have their confessions in black and white.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
It was pretty awful, and ignored the transmission risk for the families of students.
I can see the political imperative to find an angle from which to criticise the government, but I think they should have realised this was wrong. Too little too late on quarantine would have been better.
Yesterday I got up to read the overnight discussion about Trump and impeachment, seeing many PB'ers arguing against pressing too hard on the trial and some suggesting Trump should be allowed to walk away in the interests of national healing.
Such sympathy and understanding seems strangely absent from last night's discussion when it comes to the hapless footsoldiers who Trump duped into his dirty work.
War is entirely reliant on duped hapless footsoldiers, prepared to risk their all for a cause.
I have sympathy for a granny from East Bumfuck, Idaho, wandering in awe around the Capitol clutching her little Stars and Stripes. But would she have tried to stop the lynching of the Vice President? Just by being there, she and hundreds like her may have blocked the way of those who would have tried.
Cross the line - and the American state is a very unforgiving place. It will be a sympathy-free zone.
The same logic applies to dealing with the ringleader(s)
Agreed. But they have the protection of being within "the American state". Unlike their dumb schmuck followers.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
They want teachers (and others such as the police and prison officers) to be in group five.
Yesterday I got up to read the overnight discussion about Trump and impeachment, seeing many PB'ers arguing against pressing too hard on the trial and some suggesting Trump should be allowed to walk away in the interests of national healing.
Such sympathy and understanding seems strangely absent from last night's discussion when it comes to the hapless footsoldiers who Trump duped into his dirty work.
War is entirely reliant on duped hapless footsoldiers, prepared to risk their all for a cause.
I have sympathy for a granny from East Bumfuck, Idaho, wandering in awe around the Capitol clutching her little Stars and Stripes. But would she have tried to stop the lynching of the Vice President? Just by being there, she and hundreds like her may have blocked the way of those who would have tried.
Cross the line - and the American state is a very unforgiving place. It will be a sympathy-free zone.
Plus it doesn't seem like the FBI are particularly interested in flag waving grannies.
They've got a litany of digital evidence of who was planning sedition - who was planning to murder the politicians in the building - and are rounding them up and filing cases against them.
Funnily enough if you announce you're going to kill Vice President Mike Pence, then you're caught red handed in a storming of the Capitol Building, then the FBI are more capable of connecting the dots.
All these idiots who thought they were being big and clever online - the FBI have their confessions in black and white.
Come now Philip, who amongst us hasn't idly talked about murdering the Vice President of the United States repeatedly, met up with other people who have mused the same then formed a mob forcefully entering the seat of government with weapons?
A bunch of hedge funds made big bets that the price of GameStop would fall. They did this by finding people who had shares in it, and saying "excuse me, could I borrow your shares of GameStop, and I'll pay you interest to do so". After they borrowed the shares, they sold them.
The idea being that - in the future - they would buy the shares back at a lower price and sell them back.
This is known as "short selling".
GameStop is a failing firm, being destroyed by Amazon and digital distribution of games.
Hedge funds felt that betting on its shares going down in price was a sure thing.
However, a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together they could engineer something called a "short squeeze", where the price of the shares would rise, and this would force the hedge funds to buy back (to "cover their shorts") at higher prices. And it's worked. The price of GameStop, which was something like $2.50 in the middle of last year, got up to $380 earlier today.
Some hedge funds hand lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Quite a few day traders have made good money.
And the (current) price of GameStop is completely irrational. This is a loss making, sales falling, doomed business, that is currently worth about the same as the highly profitable, operates mobile phone networks in about 20 countries, Vodafone.
(Disclaimer: today the price of out the money calls on GameStop got so ridiculous, I decided to play too, and sold some myself.)
I believe there is also the small matter of the shorters shorting more than 100% of the stock? If so, Friday will be interesting.
Come now Philip, who amongst us hasn't idly talked about murdering the Vice President of the United States repeatedly, met up with other people who have mused the same then formed a mob forcefully entering the seat of government with weapons?
both showing a bigger fall off in the older groups. Early days, though
Can someone please explain this one to me? Firstly what is the scale - the 85+ seems to be 0.07, what does that refer to? And it looks like cases are highest amongst the over 85s rather than then youngsters, is that correct?
Maybe I'm misreading it, but it looks to me like almost all of the lines have fallen by 50% from their peak.
0-14 about 0.04 to 0.02 a fall of 50% 15-44 about 0.13 to 0.06 a fall over 50% 45-64 about 0.01 to 0.05 a fall of 50% 65-74 about 0.05 to 0.025 a fall of 50% 75-84 about 0.06 to 0.03 a fall of 50% 85+ 0.12 to 0.07 just a fall under 50%
Have I missed anything. I'm not seeing a bigger fall off in the older groups?
A bunch of hedge funds made big bets that the price of GameStop would fall. They did this by finding people who had shares in it, and saying "excuse me, could I borrow your shares of GameStop, and I'll pay you interest to do so". After they borrowed the shares, they sold them.
The idea being that - in the future - they would buy the shares back at a lower price and sell them back.
This is known as "short selling".
GameStop is a failing firm, being destroyed by Amazon and digital distribution of games.
Hedge funds felt that betting on its shares going down in price was a sure thing.
However, a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together they could engineer something called a "short squeeze", where the price of the shares would rise, and this would force the hedge funds to buy back (to "cover their shorts") at higher prices. And it's worked. The price of GameStop, which was something like $2.50 in the middle of last year, got up to $380 earlier today.
Some hedge funds hand lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Quite a few day traders have made good money.
And the (current) price of GameStop is completely irrational. This is a loss making, sales falling, doomed business, that is currently worth about the same as the highly profitable, operates mobile phone networks in about 20 countries, Vodafone.
(Disclaimer: today the price of out the money calls on GameStop got so ridiculous, I decided to play too, and sold some myself.)
To The Moon!
"a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together"
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
They want teachers (and others such as the police and prison officers) to be in group five.
Thanks, that is bad politics. It is hard to see why a 30 year old teacher should be vaccinated ahead of a 63 year old with serious health conditions. From a political viewpoint putting them ahead of 15 million in the queues already published is never going to be popular.
There is a scientific case to be made to give higher priority to people who have significantly more daily interaction, but that needs to be led by SAGE not the politicians - if they havent gone down that route then politicians should be cautious in interfering.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
No. That would have been smart and ahead of the curve (as its probably what will be done).
They're proposing they get vaccinated at February halfterm, which is when the first 4 priority groups are due to be completed and we're due to be moving onto priority group 5.
So they'd be bumping down priority groups 5 to 9. Except magically nobody gets bumped down in their world.
Such a relief in the face of scandal that Spain is awash with spare vaccines...oh..no it f*****g isn't.
“Pope Francis urged us all to get vaccinated” so “when I was included in the list of people who should receive the vaccine, I did not object and I acted in good faith to set an example.”
The novel "The Pope made me do it" defence. "I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition..."
both showing a bigger fall off in the older groups. Early days, though
Can someone please explain this one to me? Firstly what is the scale - the 85+ seems to be 0.07, what does that refer to? And it looks like cases are highest amongst the over 85s rather than then youngsters, is that correct?
Maybe I'm misreading it, but it looks to me like almost all of the lines have fallen by 50% from their peak.
0-14 about 0.04 to 0.02 a fall of 50% 15-44 about 0.13 to 0.06 a fall over 50% 45-64 about 0.01 to 0.05 a fall of 50% 65-74 about 0.05 to 0.025 a fall of 50% 75-84 about 0.06 to 0.03 a fall of 50% 85+ 0.12 to 0.07 just a fall under 50%
Have I missed anything. I'm not seeing a bigger fall off in the older groups?
The last line for over 85s looks a slightly steeper decline. Could the 007 number be a higher proportion of a lower intitial figue?
Interesting if understated point that Labour (and Mr G. Brown) may be promising a different set of Unionist unicorns to those the Tories are trying to promise. Only one lot of promises - if that - can be valid. It also implies that Better Together will not be getting together again - i.e. no Labour penal battalions for the Tories to hide behind, like a crab wearing a sponge.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I’m not in favour of teachers jumping the queue for the vaccine, but she was correct that this JVT person was at best disingenuous and at worse dishonest. The statistics (please note - not science) were deeply flawed and appear, like all other statistics to do with education, to have been manipulated for political reasons.
(Incidentally, I used to work for the ONS for a time, after leaving uni. I don’t trust them a yard.)
Interesting if understated point that Labour (and Mr G. Brown) may be promising a different set of Unionist unicorns to those the Tories are trying to promise. Only one lot of promises - if that - can be valid. It also implies that Better Together will not be getting together again - i.e. no Labour penal battalions for the Tories to hide behind, like a crab wearing a sponge.
Yesterday I got up to read the overnight discussion about Trump and impeachment, seeing many PB'ers arguing against pressing too hard on the trial and some suggesting Trump should be allowed to walk away in the interests of national healing.
Such sympathy and understanding seems strangely absent from last night's discussion when it comes to the hapless footsoldiers who Trump duped into his dirty work.
War is entirely reliant on duped hapless footsoldiers, prepared to risk their all for a cause.
I have sympathy for a granny from East Bumfuck, Idaho, wandering in awe around the Capitol clutching her little Stars and Stripes. But would she have tried to stop the lynching of the Vice President? Just by being there, she and hundreds like her may have blocked the way of those who would have tried.
Cross the line - and the American state is a very unforgiving place. It will be a sympathy-free zone.
Plus it doesn't seem like the FBI are particularly interested in flag waving grannies.
They've got a litany of digital evidence of who was planning sedition - who was planning to murder the politicians in the building - and are rounding them up and filing cases against them.
Funnily enough if you announce you're going to kill Vice President Mike Pence, then you're caught red handed in a storming of the Capitol Building, then the FBI are more capable of connecting the dots.
All these idiots who thought they were being big and clever online - the FBI have their confessions in black and white.
Come now Philip, who amongst us hasn't idly talked about murdering the Vice President of the United States repeatedly, met up with other people who have mused the same then formed a mob forcefully entering the seat of government with weapons?
If that is a crime then we are all guilty.
Let he amongst you who hasn't plotted to capture and execute people cast the first stone.
Interesting if understated point that Labour (and Mr G. Brown) may be promising a different set of Unionist unicorns to those the Tories are trying to promise. Only one lot of promises - if that - can be valid. It also implies that Better Together will not be getting together again - i.e. no Labour penal battalions for the Tories to hide behind, like a crab wearing a sponge.
I would like Scotland to remain in the UK but I cannot see any strategy working to achieve that, which sees the Unionist forces at each other's throats. The polling for years now seems to have the unionists made up of around 20% Tories, maybe slightly less Labour and 5% LD. They either recognise political reality and fight the good fight or all face the blame for losing. I think the unwillingness is strongest on the left. So be it.
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
A bunch of hedge funds made big bets that the price of GameStop would fall. They did this by finding people who had shares in it, and saying "excuse me, could I borrow your shares of GameStop, and I'll pay you interest to do so". After they borrowed the shares, they sold them.
The idea being that - in the future - they would buy the shares back at a lower price and sell them back.
This is known as "short selling".
GameStop is a failing firm, being destroyed by Amazon and digital distribution of games.
Hedge funds felt that betting on its shares going down in price was a sure thing.
However, a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together they could engineer something called a "short squeeze", where the price of the shares would rise, and this would force the hedge funds to buy back (to "cover their shorts") at higher prices. And it's worked. The price of GameStop, which was something like $2.50 in the middle of last year, got up to $380 earlier today.
Some hedge funds hand lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Quite a few day traders have made good money.
And the (current) price of GameStop is completely irrational. This is a loss making, sales falling, doomed business, that is currently worth about the same as the highly profitable, operates mobile phone networks in about 20 countries, Vodafone.
(Disclaimer: today the price of out the money calls on GameStop got so ridiculous, I decided to play too, and sold some myself.)
To The Moon!
"a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together"
??
Isn't that what they call 'wire fraud' in the US?
They just love the fundamentals of the stock. No crime.
The fundamental is that by doing this the fuck naked short sellers.
Interesting if understated point that Labour (and Mr G. Brown) may be promising a different set of Unionist unicorns to those the Tories are trying to promise. Only one lot of promises - if that - can be valid. It also implies that Better Together will not be getting together again - i.e. no Labour penal battalions for the Tories to hide behind, like a crab wearing a sponge.
I would like Scotland to remain in the UK but I cannot see any strategy working to achieve that, which sees the Unionist forces at each other's throats. The polling for years now seems to have the unionists made up of around 20% Tories, maybe slightly less Labour and 5% LD. They either recognise political reality and fight the good fight or all face the blame for losing. I think the unwillingness is strongest on the left. So be it.
It is indeed an important point. One wouldn't expect Labour to join a coalition such as Better Together before the May (or whenever) elections, for obvious reasons - no point in getting into bed with Mr Johnson before one has to, and the Unionists might yet win that election, or at least try to define things in such a way that theu can pretend they did. But Labour did suffer dreadfully for allying with the Tories [edit: in 2014], and it will be very interesting to see what the new leader of SLAB - and his/her boss SKS - have to say.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
They want teachers (and others such as the police and prison officers) to be in group five.
Thanks, that is bad politics. It is hard to see why a 30 year old teacher should be vaccinated ahead of a 63 year old with serious health conditions. From a political viewpoint putting them ahead of 15 million in the queues already published is never going to be popular.
There is a scientific case to be made to give higher priority to people who have significantly more daily interaction, but that needs to be led by SAGE not the politicians - if they havent gone down that route then politicians should be cautious in interfering.
The one thing guaranteed about this crisis would be that in any rationing of a vaccine there will be injustices , queue jumpers etc .So i just think its best to concentrate on the things that are not certain (when schools and other things will open etc) . What is the point of everyone turning into a ugly argument about queue jumping that is always going to happen somewhere. It is even being argued about between EU and UK when both are just trying to protect their populations first
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
They want teachers (and others such as the police and prison officers) to be in group five.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
They want teachers (and others such as the police and prison officers) to be in group five.
Thanks, that is bad politics.
70% of people polled agree with them.
Yep but this is the kind of situation where you poll a platitude and get a positive response. Two weeks ago if you'd asked me, 'should teachers get vaccinated as a priority?' I'd have said, 'yes.'
When you begin to examine the policy, as people now are, you quickly realise it's stupidity. The polling will swiftly change on it.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
They want teachers (and others such as the police and prison officers) to be in group five.
Thanks, that is bad politics.
70% of people polled agree with them.
One of those stupid irrelevant polls by only putting one side.
"Do you want to see teachers vaccinated" - Yes. "Do you want to see the vulnerable elderly bumped down the priority list in order to see healthy young teachers vaccinated before them?"
Its like those polls that show if you ask if [xyz] should get more funding then people say yes, if you ask if they personally should get a tax cut they say yes, if you ask if there should be a balanced budget people say yes. If you ask only the positive and not say how to pay for it people tend to say yes.
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Very interesting data, highlighting even more (eg look at Cumbria) the split between posh/highly educated and unposh/less well educated areas. A rare win for the 'Speak for England' faction.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
They want teachers (and others such as the police and prison officers) to be in group five.
Thanks, that is bad politics.
70% of people polled agree with them.
Bad policy, good politics? Wouldn't be the first time.
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
A bunch of hedge funds made big bets that the price of GameStop would fall. They did this by finding people who had shares in it, and saying "excuse me, could I borrow your shares of GameStop, and I'll pay you interest to do so". After they borrowed the shares, they sold them.
The idea being that - in the future - they would buy the shares back at a lower price and sell them back.
This is known as "short selling".
GameStop is a failing firm, being destroyed by Amazon and digital distribution of games.
Hedge funds felt that betting on its shares going down in price was a sure thing.
However, a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together they could engineer something called a "short squeeze", where the price of the shares would rise, and this would force the hedge funds to buy back (to "cover their shorts") at higher prices. And it's worked. The price of GameStop, which was something like $2.50 in the middle of last year, got up to $380 earlier today.
Some hedge funds hand lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Quite a few day traders have made good money.
And the (current) price of GameStop is completely irrational. This is a loss making, sales falling, doomed business, that is currently worth about the same as the highly profitable, operates mobile phone networks in about 20 countries, Vodafone.
(Disclaimer: today the price of out the money calls on GameStop got so ridiculous, I decided to play too, and sold some myself.)
To The Moon!
"a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together"
??
Isn't that what they call 'wire fraud' in the US?
They just love the fundamentals of the stock. No crime.
The fundamental is that by doing this the fuck naked short sellers.
I saw an interesting thread on this: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will-wallstreetbets-face-sec-scrutiny-after-gamestop-rally The conclusion was that it's not absolutely clear whether it could attract the attention of the SEC, but it does lack any of the dishonesty normally found in pump and dump schemes. The people doing this have been completely open and honest that they are deliberately pumping up the stock, they've not tried to trick anyone that they have inside information that GameStop is going to be a success, nor that there is money to be made in backing the stock (although there is, or at least was). So, I guess, where's the 'fraud' if there is no deception?
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
But yes it means that the vulnerable people the JCVI have prioritised are all delayed. Except magically they say nobody will get delayed. I'd have more respect if they acknowledged people would be delayed but gave a reason why they should be - they don't though. Its the worst kind of purely dishonest populism.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
They want teachers (and others such as the police and prison officers) to be in group five.
Thanks, that is bad politics.
70% of people polled agree with them.
Yep but this is the kind of situation where you poll a platitude and get a positive response. Two weeks ago if you'd asked me, 'should teachers get vaccinated as a priority?' I'd have said, 'yes.'
When you begin to examine the policy, as people now are, you quickly realise it's stupidity. The polling will swiftly change on it.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
They want teachers (and others such as the police and prison officers) to be in group five.
Thanks, that is bad politics.
70% of people polled agree with them.
Yep but this is the kind of situation where you poll a platitude and get a positive response. Two weeks ago if you'd asked me, 'should teachers get vaccinated as a priority?' I'd have said, 'yes.'
When you begin to examine the policy, as people now are, you quickly realise it's stupidity. The polling will swiftly change on it.
It's not that the policy is stupid - just that the secondary effect (pushing other people down the queue) is not desirable, relative to the advantage of vaccinating the teachers.
There was a rather good West Wing episode where they explored push polling and reading the tea leaves wrong.
IIRC it was a poster pushing a policy of an anti-flag-burning-amendment.
On vaccination - in the US, this kind of modifying-the-priority-list for politically connected groups is already going on. I do not think this is desirable.
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
A bunch of hedge funds made big bets that the price of GameStop would fall. They did this by finding people who had shares in it, and saying "excuse me, could I borrow your shares of GameStop, and I'll pay you interest to do so". After they borrowed the shares, they sold them.
The idea being that - in the future - they would buy the shares back at a lower price and sell them back.
This is known as "short selling".
GameStop is a failing firm, being destroyed by Amazon and digital distribution of games.
Hedge funds felt that betting on its shares going down in price was a sure thing.
However, a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together they could engineer something called a "short squeeze", where the price of the shares would rise, and this would force the hedge funds to buy back (to "cover their shorts") at higher prices. And it's worked. The price of GameStop, which was something like $2.50 in the middle of last year, got up to $380 earlier today.
Some hedge funds hand lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Quite a few day traders have made good money.
And the (current) price of GameStop is completely irrational. This is a loss making, sales falling, doomed business, that is currently worth about the same as the highly profitable, operates mobile phone networks in about 20 countries, Vodafone.
(Disclaimer: today the price of out the money calls on GameStop got so ridiculous, I decided to play too, and sold some myself.)
To The Moon!
"a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together"
??
Isn't that what they call 'wire fraud' in the US?
They just love the fundamentals of the stock. No crime.
The fundamental is that by doing this the fuck naked short sellers.
Which is effectively what hedge funds do anyway, they just collect investors money, and do exactly the same just concentrate the power.
Short Selling should be a banned practice. As far as I can see it has no benefit outside speculation.
A bunch of hedge funds made big bets that the price of GameStop would fall. They did this by finding people who had shares in it, and saying "excuse me, could I borrow your shares of GameStop, and I'll pay you interest to do so". After they borrowed the shares, they sold them.
The idea being that - in the future - they would buy the shares back at a lower price and sell them back.
This is known as "short selling".
GameStop is a failing firm, being destroyed by Amazon and digital distribution of games.
Hedge funds felt that betting on its shares going down in price was a sure thing.
However, a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together they could engineer something called a "short squeeze", where the price of the shares would rise, and this would force the hedge funds to buy back (to "cover their shorts") at higher prices. And it's worked. The price of GameStop, which was something like $2.50 in the middle of last year, got up to $380 earlier today.
Some hedge funds hand lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Quite a few day traders have made good money.
And the (current) price of GameStop is completely irrational. This is a loss making, sales falling, doomed business, that is currently worth about the same as the highly profitable, operates mobile phone networks in about 20 countries, Vodafone.
(Disclaimer: today the price of out the money calls on GameStop got so ridiculous, I decided to play too, and sold some myself.)
To The Moon!
"a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together"
??
Isn't that what they call 'wire fraud' in the US?
They just love the fundamentals of the stock. No crime.
The fundamental is that by doing this the fuck naked short sellers.
Which is effectively what hedge funds do anyway, they just collect investors money, and do exactly the same just concentrate the power.
Short Selling should be a banned practice. As far as I can see it has no benefit outside speculation.
It improves the liquidity of the market and allows portfolios to balance and minimise risk.
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
both showing a bigger fall off in the older groups. Early days, though
Can someone please explain this one to me? Firstly what is the scale - the 85+ seems to be 0.07, what does that refer to? And it looks like cases are highest amongst the over 85s rather than then youngsters, is that correct?
Maybe I'm misreading it, but it looks to me like almost all of the lines have fallen by 50% from their peak.
0-14 about 0.04 to 0.02 a fall of 50% 15-44 about 0.13 to 0.06 a fall over 50% 45-64 about 0.01 to 0.05 a fall of 50% 65-74 about 0.05 to 0.025 a fall of 50% 75-84 about 0.06 to 0.03 a fall of 50% 85+ 0.12 to 0.07 just a fall under 50%
Have I missed anything. I'm not seeing a bigger fall off in the older groups?
The last line for over 85s looks a slightly steeper decline. Could the 007 number be a higher proportion of a lower intitial figue?
The idea is that the the age groups are scaled to the size of the group. So the Y axis is the percentage of that cohort getting COVID (becoming a case). i.e. 0.7% of 85+ year olds etc.
The reason I went for scaling (in this version) is that this should show movements better on a common graph. otherwise the size of the group dominates, for simple number-of-cases.
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.
We should give them nothing vaccine wise. We should give any spare to africa, the middle east or south america. The EU is rich enough to buy its own not our fault they screwed the pooch
South America and South Africa both seem to be good candidates for having as much excess capacity diverted to them. High density populations, with large outbreaks but not rich enough to be able to get vaccine priority.
But not the big political gesture as it would be to answer the EU call.
UK are in an excellent position to be the uninjured one in Rolf Harris 2 little boys song.
The next move is the EU will call and ask, can you share some. Has there been any polling yet on how UK gov should answer? There is going to be polling because what a big call. The sort of political decision that separates the chaff from the wheat.
To my mind the answer is absolutely yes. It’s got to be yes. Not just for the good politics of saying yes, but because saying no would be such terrible politics. We may have upper hand at this end, but if it goes into big squabble mode we could end up worse off at the other end.
Got to play the long, all working together game on this.
I would expect the public to be furious and even more so at any politician who agreed to this
That would the most awful, short term reactionary politics not to talk to them and help. Madness.
Reality I am afraid
If I was PM, I would say yeah.
If you are really convinced we would scratch their back in their hour of need, but they would never return the favour. Fine.
But really you can’t do politics like that. You have always got to look to build partnership, because you don’t know what the future holds.
The issue is one of what it costs us.
If it was just money that would be fine.
But ever dose of vaccine you send abroad is one that one of our own citizens doesn't get. That's more deaths, more children who lose a parent, more people who lose a husband or wife. No politician could ever justify that.
Perhaps once we have done the first 9 cohorts (is that down to 50+?) we can share some because at that point I would assume that lockdown would have been significantly improved.
But we should be absolutely mercenary about it. No point in giving it to the EU. But we could give to Ireland, or to Spain or Portugal if they are still struggling. Or anywhere else - I don't really care (although I would put developing countries far higher up the list)
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
The problem is, it still doesn't deal with the issue around vulnerable parents.
And nobody's even attempted to calculate the infection/mortality rate for them.
both showing a bigger fall off in the older groups. Early days, though
Can someone please explain this one to me? Firstly what is the scale - the 85+ seems to be 0.07, what does that refer to? And it looks like cases are highest amongst the over 85s rather than then youngsters, is that correct?
Maybe I'm misreading it, but it looks to me like almost all of the lines have fallen by 50% from their peak.
0-14 about 0.04 to 0.02 a fall of 50% 15-44 about 0.13 to 0.06 a fall over 50% 45-64 about 0.01 to 0.05 a fall of 50% 65-74 about 0.05 to 0.025 a fall of 50% 75-84 about 0.06 to 0.03 a fall of 50% 85+ 0.12 to 0.07 just a fall under 50%
Have I missed anything. I'm not seeing a bigger fall off in the older groups?
The last line for over 85s looks a slightly steeper decline. Could the 007 number be a higher proportion of a lower intitial figue?
The idea is that the the age groups are scaled to the size of the group. So the Y axis is the percentage of that cohort getting COVID (becoming a case). i.e. 0.7% of 85+ year olds etc.
The reason I went for scaling (in this version) is that this should show movements better on a common graph. otherwise the size of the group dominates, for simple number-of-cases.
Scaled makes sense but what is the scale? Because that says 0.07 doesn't it? We don't have 7% of 85+ with the virus surely, so is it 0.07%? And is it right then that over 85s are more likely to have the virus now than the young?
And what reason do you have to say there's a bigger fall in the older groups? Because the eldest group seems the only one not falling by 50% - it doesn't seem to be falling proportionately faster?
Interesting if understated point that Labour (and Mr G. Brown) may be promising a different set of Unionist unicorns to those the Tories are trying to promise. Only one lot of promises - if that - can be valid. It also implies that Better Together will not be getting together again - i.e. no Labour penal battalions for the Tories to hide behind, like a crab wearing a sponge.
I would like Scotland to remain in the UK but I cannot see any strategy working to achieve that, which sees the Unionist forces at each other's throats. The polling for years now seems to have the unionists made up of around 20% Tories, maybe slightly less Labour and 5% LD. They either recognise political reality and fight the good fight or all face the blame for losing. I think the unwillingness is strongest on the left. So be it.
It is indeed an important point. One wouldn't expect Labour to join a coalition such as Better Together before the May (or whenever) elections, for obvious reasons - no point in getting into bed with Mr Johnson before one has to, and the Unionists might yet win that election, or at least try to define things in such a way that theu can pretend they did. But Labour did suffer dreadfully for allying with the Tories [edit: in 2014], and it will be very interesting to see what the new leader of SLAB - and his/her boss SKS - have to say.
It is pleasant to engage with a Scottish poster and, I think independence supporter, who is not off the wall!
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
The problem is, it still doesn't deal with the issue around vulnerable parents.
And nobody's even attempted to calculate the infection/mortality rate for them.
The clinically vulnerable parents/guardians should have been jabbed by then.
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
The problem is, it still doesn't deal with the issue around vulnerable parents.
And nobody's even attempted to calculate the infection/mortality rate for them.
The clinically vulnerable parents/guardians should have been jabbed by then.
Really? I know you have, but how many over 40s with asthma will have been?
both showing a bigger fall off in the older groups. Early days, though
Can someone please explain this one to me? Firstly what is the scale - the 85+ seems to be 0.07, what does that refer to? And it looks like cases are highest amongst the over 85s rather than then youngsters, is that correct?
Maybe I'm misreading it, but it looks to me like almost all of the lines have fallen by 50% from their peak.
0-14 about 0.04 to 0.02 a fall of 50% 15-44 about 0.13 to 0.06 a fall over 50% 45-64 about 0.01 to 0.05 a fall of 50% 65-74 about 0.05 to 0.025 a fall of 50% 75-84 about 0.06 to 0.03 a fall of 50% 85+ 0.12 to 0.07 just a fall under 50%
Have I missed anything. I'm not seeing a bigger fall off in the older groups?
The last line for over 85s looks a slightly steeper decline. Could the 007 number be a higher proportion of a lower intitial figue?
The idea is that the the age groups are scaled to the size of the group. So the Y axis is the percentage of that cohort getting COVID (becoming a case). i.e. 0.7% of 85+ year olds etc.
The reason I went for scaling (in this version) is that this should show movements better on a common graph. otherwise the size of the group dominates, for simple number-of-cases.
That is what I was trying - and failing - to say. Many thanks.
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
The problem is, it still doesn't deal with the issue around vulnerable parents.
And nobody's even attempted to calculate the infection/mortality rate for them.
It’s clear that a large proportion of the recent cases in the Guernsey outbreak have come via education.
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
Does not alter the question of who gets pushed back? Nor does it deal with the issue of childfren infecting their families. Nor does it cover teaching support staff, cleaners, dinner providers, etc, etc. Apart from that it's a really great wheeze! Rock on Angie!
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
The problem is, it still doesn't deal with the issue around vulnerable parents.
And nobody's even attempted to calculate the infection/mortality rate for them.
The clinically vulnerable parents/guardians should have been jabbed by then.
No, only the "clinically extremely vulnerable". Not the clinically vulnerable.
There are many parents/guardians who will be over 50, let alone in priority group 6 "all individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality"
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
The problem is, it still doesn't deal with the issue around vulnerable parents.
And nobody's even attempted to calculate the infection/mortality rate for them.
The clinically vulnerable parents/guardians should have been jabbed by then.
Really? I know you have, but how many over 40s with asthma will have been?
Assuming the vaccine delivery from AZ and Pfizer is as expected we should have made huge dent in that demographic after mid February even before the government chose to focus on that group as a priority.
A bunch of hedge funds made big bets that the price of GameStop would fall. They did this by finding people who had shares in it, and saying "excuse me, could I borrow your shares of GameStop, and I'll pay you interest to do so". After they borrowed the shares, they sold them.
The idea being that - in the future - they would buy the shares back at a lower price and sell them back.
This is known as "short selling".
GameStop is a failing firm, being destroyed by Amazon and digital distribution of games.
Hedge funds felt that betting on its shares going down in price was a sure thing.
However, a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together they could engineer something called a "short squeeze", where the price of the shares would rise, and this would force the hedge funds to buy back (to "cover their shorts") at higher prices. And it's worked. The price of GameStop, which was something like $2.50 in the middle of last year, got up to $380 earlier today.
Some hedge funds hand lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Quite a few day traders have made good money.
And the (current) price of GameStop is completely irrational. This is a loss making, sales falling, doomed business, that is currently worth about the same as the highly profitable, operates mobile phone networks in about 20 countries, Vodafone.
(Disclaimer: today the price of out the money calls on GameStop got so ridiculous, I decided to play too, and sold some myself.)
To The Moon!
"a bunch of day traders realised that if they worked together"
??
Isn't that what they call 'wire fraud' in the US?
They just love the fundamentals of the stock. No crime.
The fundamental is that by doing this the fuck naked short sellers.
Which is effectively what hedge funds do anyway, they just collect investors money, and do exactly the same just concentrate the power.
Short Selling should be a banned practice. As far as I can see it has no benefit outside speculation.
Short sellers always quote price discovery as a benefit. Well this week prices have certainly been discovered with Gamestop.
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
The problem is, it still doesn't deal with the issue around vulnerable parents.
And nobody's even attempted to calculate the infection/mortality rate for them.
The clinically vulnerable parents/guardians should have been jabbed by then.
Really? I know you have, but how many over 40s with asthma will have been?
Assuming the vaccine delivery from AZ and Pfizer is as expected we should have made huge dent in that demographic after mid February even before the government chose to focus on that group as a priority.
Apologies if this point has already been made... but has anyone modelled whether the EU co-ordinating vaccinations, so that the most vulnerable groups in 27 countries are dealt with first, will save more lives than a free-for-all in which the German 35 year-old gets it before the Bulgarian 80 year-old?* After all, isn’t this the approach the U.K. is taking for its constituent countries (as far as health is concerned)?
* taking into account the delay that a co-ordinated programme entails...
and allows portfolios to balance and minimise risk.
Lol, certainly noone is minimising risk here.
Because they f***ed up.
Hedge funds are completely misnamed, they've probably got more resemblance to a garden hedge than actually "hedging bets". They're in it to make as much money as possible, caution be damned. Not in the Gamestop stuff myself but cheering Redditors all the way on this one.
Angela Rayner very exposed on Today this morning, and unimpressive. Teachers should go to the front of the queue for vaccine, but magically no-one in other groups would lose their place in it by this action. And the science about the risks to teachers as reported by J V-T is wrong.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
I have not been following it closely but surely the approach Labour should take on teacher priority (if they wish to make it an issue) is completely obvious. There are nine priority groups so far. Labours proposal should simply be to add teachers as the tenth group, to be done after the other nine, but other the rest, is that what they are proposing?
As I understand it, they are saying teachers should (effectively) become group 5 but without disadvantaging anyone currently in groups 5-9
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
The problem is, it still doesn't deal with the issue around vulnerable parents.
And nobody's even attempted to calculate the infection/mortality rate for them.
The clinically vulnerable parents/guardians should have been jabbed by then.
Really? I know you have, but how many over 40s with asthma will have been?
Assuming the vaccine delivery from AZ and Pfizer is as expected we should have made huge dent in that demographic after mid February even before the government chose to focus on that group as a priority.
Not such a dent if they're trying to vaccinate all school staff as a priority. I'd like to see schools up and running quickly but this has not been thought through.
Labour's stupidity over the teacher vaccine grandstanding has made me pretty angry. As mentioned below, it's old labour rearing its ugly head again. An ill-conceived populist policy which has been swiftly unmasked. They have no answer to the point that it means truly vulnerable people will be pushed down the queue, and therefore exposed, except to say that magically they can be vaccinated and no one else will have to wait longer as a result. It's the worst type of grandstanding rubbish. Grrrrr.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
It has been calculated to cost 190 extra deaths a day if implemented now (caveat: Guido).
Guido has even underestimated the number of deaths.
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The government are planning a return of schools anyway so that can't be laid at Labour's door.
No you're incorrect.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
No they don't want schools back circa 21st of Feb.
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
Does not alter the question of who gets pushed back? Nor does it deal with the issue of childfren infecting their families. Nor does it cover teaching support staff, cleaners, dinner providers, etc, etc. Apart from that it's a really great wheeze! Rock on Angie!
This is the result of government's actions, if Boris Johnson had said the school year is written off because we won't vaccinate every adult before the end of the school year, then there's no need to prioritise school staff, but since the goal of the government is to reopen schools as soon as possible then you need to prioritise school staff.
Cancelling the school year would also give us time to work out whether vaccinating schoolchildren is something we should do.
Comments
but still won't sack him
Such sympathy and understanding seems strangely absent from last night's discussion when it comes to the hapless footsoldiers who Trump duped into his dirty work.
Another one the EU hasn’t ordered....
I have sympathy for a granny from East Bumfuck, Idaho, wandering in awe around the Capitol clutching her little Stars and Stripes. But would she have tried to stop the lynching of the Vice President? Just by being there, she and hundreds like her may have blocked the way of those who would have tried.
Cross the line - and the American state is a very unforgiving place. It will be a sympathy-free zone.
It felt like bad old Labour, the friend of every large public sector group, opposed to inconvenient facts.
They've got a litany of digital evidence of who was planning sedition - who was planning to murder the politicians in the building - and are rounding them up and filing cases against them.
Funnily enough if you announce you're going to kill Vice President Mike Pence, then you're caught red handed in a storming of the Capitol Building, then the FBI are more capable of connecting the dots.
All these idiots who thought they were being big and clever online - the FBI have their confessions in black and white.
I can see the political imperative to find an angle from which to criticise the government, but I think they should have realised this was wrong. Too little too late on quarantine would have been better.
Such a relief in the face of scandal that Spain is awash with spare vaccines...oh..no it f*****g isn't.
If that is a crime then we are all guilty.
Maybe I'm misreading it, but it looks to me like almost all of the lines have fallen by 50% from their peak.
0-14 about 0.04 to 0.02 a fall of 50%
15-44 about 0.13 to 0.06 a fall over 50%
45-64 about 0.01 to 0.05 a fall of 50%
65-74 about 0.05 to 0.025 a fall of 50%
75-84 about 0.06 to 0.03 a fall of 50%
85+ 0.12 to 0.07 just a fall under 50%
Have I missed anything. I'm not seeing a bigger fall off in the older groups?
??
Isn't that what they call 'wire fraud' in the US?
There is a scientific case to be made to give higher priority to people who have significantly more daily interaction, but that needs to be led by SAGE not the politicians - if they havent gone down that route then politicians should be cautious in interfering.
They're proposing they get vaccinated at February halfterm, which is when the first 4 priority groups are due to be completed and we're due to be moving onto priority group 5.
So they'd be bumping down priority groups 5 to 9. Except magically nobody gets bumped down in their world.
The novel "The Pope made me do it" defence. "I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition..."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/08/animals-crabs-behavior-camouflage-defense/#/02-waq-crab-nationalgeographic_1148998.jpg
(Incidentally, I used to work for the ONS for a time, after leaving uni. I don’t trust them a yard.)
Macron still ahead on the runoff but by just 4% over Le Pen
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1354564074613387266?s=20
..is fortunately still slightly ahead of Marine Le Pen.
For an intelligent man, Sir Keir Starmer does manage to back some incredibly dumb policies. He's partly responsible for the Carl Beech fiasco: as DPP he generated the policy of always believing abuse 'victims.' Another stupid decision.
Neither the EU nor Labour are faring well right now.
PMSL if he ends up back in Club Fed having only just been pardoned.
The fundamental is that by doing this the fuck naked short sellers.
When you begin to examine the policy, as people now are, you quickly realise it's stupidity. The polling will swiftly change on it.
"Do you want to see teachers vaccinated" - Yes.
"Do you want to see the vulnerable elderly bumped down the priority list in order to see healthy young teachers vaccinated before them?"
Its like those polls that show if you ask if [xyz] should get more funding then people say yes, if you ask if they personally should get a tax cut they say yes, if you ask if there should be a balanced budget people say yes. If you ask only the positive and not say how to pay for it people tend to say yes.
https://order-order.com/2021/01/27/labours-queue-jumping-new-vaccination-policy-projected-to-cause-extra-190-vulnerable-deaths-daily/
If Labour's policy is meant to signal a return of schools, which it clearly is, then that means children are mixing together again and some of them transmitting the virus back home: among vulnerable people who have had to wait for their vaccine because the teachers have jumped the queue.
I'm fuming at Labour's stupidity.
The conclusion was that it's not absolutely clear whether it could attract the attention of the SEC, but it does lack any of the dishonesty normally found in pump and dump schemes. The people doing this have been completely open and honest that they are deliberately pumping up the stock, they've not tried to trick anyone that they have inside information that GameStop is going to be a success, nor that there is money to be made in backing the stock (although there is, or at least was). So, I guess, where's the 'fraud' if there is no deception?
But yes it means that the vulnerable people the JCVI have prioritised are all delayed. Except magically they say nobody will get delayed. I'd have more respect if they acknowledged people would be delayed but gave a reason why they should be - they don't though. Its the worst kind of purely dishonest populism.
There was a rather good West Wing episode where they explored push polling and reading the tea leaves wrong.
IIRC it was a poster pushing a policy of an anti-flag-burning-amendment.
On vaccination - in the US, this kind of modifying-the-priority-list for politically connected groups is already going on. I do not think this is desirable.
It’s a turn up for the books when the current HMG manages a more measured tone than the usual suspects on PB, and no mistake.
Labour with this policy explicitly want schools back straight after half-term i.e. c. 21st February, which also incidentally fails to understand that even with the first jab you need to wait 21 days for it to take effect.
The Government don't want schools back until into March and, critically, once the JCVI approved most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
The Government are absolutely right on this and Labour are absolutely wrong.
Short Selling should be a banned practice. As far as I can see it has no benefit outside speculation.
https://twitter.com/ExStrategist/status/1354713127947010050?s=20
Labour's policy was quite clear, vaccinate the teachers around half term, they know the vaccine doesn't become properly effective on day one one of injection, but later on,
So by the time the vaccine becomes effective it'll be around the time the government wants to open schools, which is around the 8th of March (depending on infection rates and hospitalisation numbers etc.)
The reason I went for scaling (in this version) is that this should show movements better on a common graph. otherwise the size of the group dominates, for simple number-of-cases.
If it was just money that would be fine.
But ever dose of vaccine you send abroad is one that one of our own citizens doesn't get. That's more deaths, more children who lose a parent, more people who lose a husband or wife. No politician could ever justify that.
Perhaps once we have done the first 9 cohorts (is that down to 50+?) we can share some because at that point I would assume that lockdown would have been significantly improved.
But we should be absolutely mercenary about it. No point in giving it to the EU. But we could give to Ireland, or to Spain or Portugal if they are still struggling. Or anywhere else - I don't really care (although I would put developing countries far higher up the list)
And nobody's even attempted to calculate the infection/mortality rate for them.
Les Fashos will do better this time if only because they have quietly dumped the FRORTIE policy.
And what reason do you have to say there's a bigger fall in the older groups? Because the eldest group seems the only one not falling by 50% - it doesn't seem to be falling proportionately faster?
So Labour largest party in a hung parliament on those numbers
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=37&LAB=41&LIB=6&Brexit=3&Green=4&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=20.5&SCOTLIB=5.5&SCOTBrexit=0&SCOTGreen=2.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=50.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1354701021042401280?s=19
https://twitter.com/TomWitherow/status/1354718013627498498
Truth teller or nutter ?
There are many parents/guardians who will be over 50, let alone in priority group 6 "all individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality"
Those won't have been done yet.
* taking into account the delay that a co-ordinated programme entails...
He should be sacked for being a totally incompetent liar, not for disagreeing with the PM on a matter of policy.
Not in the Gamestop stuff myself but cheering Redditors all the way on this one.
Cancelling the school year would also give us time to work out whether vaccinating schoolchildren is something we should do.