Thrilled to say my Dad - group 5, & 69 years young is getting a first vaccination today. Coventry NHS.
That's great news if they're down to group 5 already - although each successive group contains many more members than the previous groups.
Lots of parents of PBers being done at the moment, those 10m vaccines have had to go somewhere!
Not so re all the group numbers. The 65-69 group is only 2.9m so less than several of the groups above it. I'll give you one guess as to why I know that?
This was the chart I was looking at. Shows 65-69 and 70-74 quite close in numbers, but a lot higher than the groups above.
They weren't just grouped together by equal spaces of age and also the groups contained people unrelated to age eg extremely vunlerable, health workers, care home residents, etc.
So the top group was split in 5 and had in the millions 4.1, 3.8, 2.3, 3.2, 1.2.
My group 65 - 69 has 2.9m
The next group 16 - 64 with health issues is 7.3m and much larger than all those above.
1. It's far too early to have an inquiry. Can't you see we're in the middle of trying to deal with the bloody thing? 2. Let's wait until it's all over. Only then can we assess who did well or not. 3. The second/third wave is really not the time to have an inquiry. It's a distraction. We need to have all hands to the pump. 4. Any inquiry must also include all the things we did right. Our vaccination policy was world-beating. 5. The PM cannot be responsible for everything. The people must take their share of the blame. 6. Inquiries take too long and who are judges to understand these things. 7. Apportioning blame does not achieve anything. 8. Lessons will be learned without the need for an inquiry. 9. An inquiry will be used by Brexit-haters to get at Boris. 10. We've got through this. Do we really need to rake over the ashes? 11. This is a distraction. We need to focus on "X" which is what really matters to voters. 12. The voters will have their say at the next GE.
You're welcome. Please feel free to add any more.
13. Maybe we should have had an enquiry, but it's all ancient history now.
I don't understand the point of doing any more trials in the UK?
Surely we're vaccinating everyone now as it is. The virus is heading towards eradication, there shouldn't be any more major surges going forwards. So how is a trial now going to find much meaningful data?
Surely a trial in Brazil or South Africa etc would make more sense?
Recruiting for the early trials - when you had a 50% chance of getting the vaccine months in advance of your expected date - will be much easier than this trial, when you’d be taking a 50% chance of becoming one of the few people actually unvaccinated.
The reason for the trial, of course, is to find out whether a combination is even more effective - as some Russian scientists have been proposing.
Aiui this is a single blind study so it doesn't have a control group, the efficacy will be compared to known trial results for Pfizer and AZ. It is an effective queue jump for anyone aged 50-70.
Thanks for the explanation (and to everyone else) - it makes sense to be doing trials testing antibodies rather than infections like in Phase III.
If the results of this trial is good then would that mean mix and match can be approved based on these trials alone, or would there then need to be a Phase III? Or is Phase III no longer needed since its already been tested previously?
No, it's not going to be based on antibodies. What they will do is compare the infection rate in the cohort over time vs two same dose vaccinated cohorts. I'm sure they're going to do antibody tests as well though. The number of neutralising antibodies can actually be modelled fairly well into efficacy now with so many trial results in and so many variable immune responses among those trials.
I don't understand the point of doing any more trials in the UK?
Surely we're vaccinating everyone now as it is. The virus is heading towards eradication, there shouldn't be any more major surges going forwards. So how is a trial now going to find much meaningful data?
Surely a trial in Brazil or South Africa etc would make more sense?
Recruiting for the early trials - when you had a 50% chance of getting the vaccine months in advance of your expected date - will be much easier than this trial, when you’d be taking a 50% chance of becoming one of the few people actually unvaccinated.
The reason for the trial, of course, is to find out whether a combination is even more effective - as some Russian scientists have been proposing.
Aiui this is a single blind study so it doesn't have a control group, the efficacy will be compared to known trial results for Pfizer and AZ. It is an effective queue jump for anyone aged 50-70.
Thanks for the explanation (and to everyone else) - it makes sense to be doing trials testing antibodies rather than infections like in Phase III.
If the results of this trial is good then would that mean mix and match can be approved based on these trials alone, or would there then need to be a Phase III? Or is Phase III no longer needed since its already been tested previously?
No, it's not going to be based on antibodies. What they will do is compare the infection rate in the cohort over time vs two same dose vaccinated cohorts. I'm sure they're going to do antibody tests as well though. The number of neutralising antibodies can actually be modelled fairly well into efficacy now with so many trial results in and so many variable immune responses among those trials.
Oh.
That goes back to my original question then, given the way case numbers are cratering and that should only continue post-vaccination hopefully, then do you think we will get sufficient infections within the cohorts to get meaningful data?
The irony is surely that hopefully we're in a position where there aren't many infections at all so 800 people might not be sufficient to get meaningful data from? That would be a good problem for us to have, but affect the trial wouldn't it?
Or do you think there's going to continue to be a high enough baseline number of cases for this to work?
From the link in the original tweet - http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN69254139 "The study team will not be offering diagnostic COVID-19 testing as part of this trial" (plain English summary)
"Characterisation of COVID-19 infections experienced following administration of vaccine" is present, but onl among secondary outcomes (no. 6 in the list)
Primary outcome measure: "Immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines boosted at day 28 in seronegative participants measured using serum level of anti-spike immunoglobulins using ELISA at 56 days "
There are a number of other secondary measures looking at primary outcome at different time points and also at antibodies.
And from participant information. ...Participants will be allocated, at random, (rather like a flip of a coin) to receive one dose of one approved vaccine and a second dose of either the same approved vaccine, or a dose of a different approved vaccine. Participants will also be allocated at random to the timing of receiving these doses – some will get a boost dose four weeks after the first dose (prime) and some will get a boost at twelve weeks. Between 5 and 9 routine blood tests will be taken over the course of a year to look at the immune responses to the vaccine depending on the group you are in. You may also be asked for a nasal fluid sample at each visit. If you were to test positive for the virus causing COVID-19 we may ask you to attend for an extra visit. Participants will need to complete an online diary for up to 28 days following each of the two vaccinations The trial will take one year to complete per participant (from the time the first dose of vaccine is given)..
If so, Zahawi is right that we should get everyone 50+ jabbed before we loosen anything.
JFGID – and start to open up a bit by Easter...
I think that's the plan tbf, get all of the over 50s done by the middle of March and then by Easter they're all protected from severe symptoms and hospitalisation. We could do all top 9 groups by the middle of March if we do 4m jabs per week on average from now, it doesn't seem impossible and with a late surge it seems very likely.
1. It's far too early to have an inquiry. Can't you see we're in the middle of trying to deal with the bloody thing? 2. Let's wait until it's all over. Only then can we assess who did well or not. 3. The second/third wave is really not the time to have an inquiry. It's a distraction. We need to have all hands to the pump. 4. Any inquiry must also include all the things we did right. Our vaccination policy was world-beating. 5. The PM cannot be responsible for everything. The people must take their share of the blame. 6. Inquiries take too long and who are judges to understand these things. 7. Apportioning blame does not achieve anything. 8. Lessons will be learned without the need for an inquiry. 9. An inquiry will be used by Brexit-haters to get at Boris. 10. We've got through this. Do we really need to rake over the ashes? 11. This is a distraction. We need to focus on "X" which is what really matters to voters. 12. The voters will have their say at the next GE.
You're welcome. Please feel free to add any more.
Truth and reconciliation in British Politics.. you are aving a larf
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
This crisis isn't over yet. I think the numbers will tell a more complex story than you think when it is.
I think the Government should (must) commission a full independent review into the lessons learned from the pandemic, particularly on transmission vectors, containment, the role of international travel, track & trace, the effectiveness of lockdowns, the tragedy of care homes, and the resilience of the NHS. It should do this in tandem with the economic, social and political factors in play too, and be supported by reasoned analysis that allows the factors to be balanced together. It should also look at lazy pre-Covid assumptions made by ministers and Whitehall that, despite this being top of the national risk register, it would be just like a flu pandemic - confirmation bias did all the work to convince them that nothing special was needed on top.
If that commission identifies gross negligence or incompetence by this PM in the story of Covid then, yes, this PM should honourably take full responsibility for that and resign; it won't bother me, I was never impressed by Boris in the first place.
However, if the criteria is solely unnecessary extra deaths then so should the EU Commission resign, and many continental politicians, who prioritised saving money over early vaccine procurement, thus guaranteeing many more tragedies in the months to come.
Funnily enough, I don't hear you mention much about them.
The EU didn't get into its mess like that, though, did it? If anything it was prioritising equity that led to their problems, and the EU itself didn't muscle into the matter. Germany was relatively quick off the mark and had its heads of agreement in place with AZN last spring, for 400 million doses with delivery starting late 2020, as part of a consortium with Italy, France and Holland.
It was only when other countries, led by Belgium, complained that every European country going it alone could leave some of the smaller ones out in the cold that Germany, as an attempt to be helpful, suggested that the procurement process be handed over to the EU. Who therefore re-started relatively late. Big mistake by the Germans - and the EU performance subsequently has been risible - but it wasn't desperation to save money nor lack of initial speed that created the problem.
Yep. Poor execution of the right approach. The notion of 27 countries in Europe doing their own thing on vaccines is sub-optimal. But it was very poor execution and the upshot is unfortunate in 2 ways. First and foremost, it will cost the lives of many EU citizens. Second, it is grist to the mill of europhobes throughout the continent. Domestic Leaver triumphalism is irritating but of no great consequence because we are not EU members. I'm thinking of sentiment in places like Italy and France and (especially) Germany. The thought of Germany turning against the EU and deciding to "break free" and pursue a narrow "national interest" does not fill me with joy. I prefer the Big D to be the sort of country that, as with the vaccine, allows the collective interest to influence decisions.
A further thought occurs. Would the EU's vaccine result have been better if the UK were still a player in Brussels? I suspect it would have been. In which case we have here an example of Brexit damaging the EU in quite a grave way. There could be more of this to come. Probably the EU will survive and prosper without us, I hope and think so, but who can be sure? When I voted Remain it was because I thought Brexit would be bad for Britain and would be bad for the EU. If anything the latter was my main fear. This vaccine shambles and its potential aftermath puts me right back in that mindset.
I've kept clear of the subject of the EU recently as it is a bit of an open goal for a Remainer like me considering the vaccine shambles, particularly compared to the really decent job we in the UK are doing.
1. It's far too early to have an inquiry. Can't you see we're in the middle of trying to deal with the bloody thing? 2. Let's wait until it's all over. Only then can we assess who did well or not. 3. The second/third wave is really not the time to have an inquiry. It's a distraction. We need to have all hands to the pump. 4. Any inquiry must also include all the things we did right. Our vaccination policy was world-beating. 5. The PM cannot be responsible for everything. The people must take their share of the blame. 6. Inquiries take too long and who are judges to understand these things. 7. Apportioning blame does not achieve anything. 8. Lessons will be learned without the need for an inquiry. 9. An inquiry will be used by Brexit-haters to get at Boris. 10. We've got through this. Do we really need to rake over the ashes? 11. This is a distraction. We need to focus on "X" which is what really matters to voters. 12. The voters will have their say at the next GE.
The Daily Rant gets lots of often justified criticism, but during the pandemic I have to give them credit for doing a decent job of searching the pre-print arxiv sites and even if their headlines about the papers can be sensationalized they always provide the link to the actual paper. The likes of the BBC rarely do.
Not sure their conclusions are well presented, if its a 1 in 2000 (it says < than this but has it as the upper threshold) chance of catching covid from commonly touched surfaces and someone touches 10 of those per week, that is then a 1 in 200 chance per week, 1 in 50 chance per month or close to 1 in 4 chance per year. I would consider that high risk not low risk. Wash your hands after touching them!
If so, Zahawi is right that we should get everyone 50+ jabbed before we loosen anything.
JFGID – and start to open up a bit by Easter...
I expect the plan (like it was in the summer) will be to remove restrictions fortnightly. So 8 March schools resume, 22 March non-essential shops etc, etc
The advantage of that is that it will be taking us less than a fortnight to vaccinate an age cohort. So every relaxation should see fewer cases if we're keeping R below 1 and fewer vulnerable unvaccinated people.
Looking at the recent slides from government, it seems we might finally have some data on hospitalisations by age.
My 'back-of-a-fag packet, quick, not certified, not even checked, throw them out there to see what PBers think' calculations are in red ink.
Looks like roughly 70% of all hospitalisations are 60+.
Thoughts?
EDIT: note that this is percentage of the sample, (approx 52k) not percentage of total hospitalisations!
Looks interesting.
A handy column to add at the end would be cumulative by age. EG 0.92 0-4, 1.15 5-9 etc
Unless I'm misreading it 18.8% of all hospitalisations are under 50, which just goes to show that although prioritising the elderly is right there should be absolutely no let-up whatsoever once they're done. Once they're done prioritising the 40s should be done straight away, then my own age group of the thirties and so on. That will protect thousands of hospitalisations, let alone other non-hospitalisation risks.
Yes, agreed, I think that's right. That's my reading.
About 81% of hospitalisations are 50+ I think?
Children and teenagers account for just~2% of the total so it's probably not worth vaccinating them unless and until we are awash with the stuff that is approved for paediatric use!
I think that's right anyway, it's all amateur number crunching – it could be wrong, DYOR etc etc
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
Because the world moves forward. In 1968, COVID would have been a horrible disaster of people coughing to death at home. Wear masks and that would have been about it. Hospitalisation wouldn't have saved a fraction of the lives.
2020 is half a century later.
Surely in 1968 a large number of the deaths would have been avoided as the old and infirm died earlier
1. It's far too early to have an inquiry. Can't you see we're in the middle of trying to deal with the bloody thing? 2. Let's wait until it's all over. Only then can we assess who did well or not. 3. The second/third wave is really not the time to have an inquiry. It's a distraction. We need to have all hands to the pump. 4. Any inquiry must also include all the things we did right. Our vaccination policy was world-beating. 5. The PM cannot be responsible for everything. The people must take their share of the blame. 6. Inquiries take too long and who are judges to understand these things. 7. Apportioning blame does not achieve anything. 8. Lessons will be learned without the need for an inquiry. 9. An inquiry will be used by Brexit-haters to get at Boris. 10. We've got through this. Do we really need to rake over the ashes? 11. This is a distraction. We need to focus on "X" which is what really matters to voters. 12. The voters will have their say at the next GE.
You're welcome. Please feel free to add any more.
13. Maybe we should have had an enquiry, but it's all ancient history now.
There will be an enquiry. Several years later. It will drag on for years and years, providing high quality food, drink and accomodation as well as good salaries for huge numbers of already well heeled participants. Lessons will be learned. Recommendations at great length will be made to justify the above, (how could it be otherwise?) but no one will be found at fault. And they will all be dead or long retired by then anyways.
If so, Zahawi is right that we should get everyone 50+ jabbed before we loosen anything.
JFGID – and start to open up a bit by Easter...
I expect the plan (like it was in the summer) will be to remove restrictions fortnightly. So 8 March schools resume, 22 March non-essential shops etc, etc
The advantage of that is that it will be taking us less than a fortnight to vaccinate an age cohort. So every relaxation should see fewer cases if we're keeping R below 1 and fewer vulnerable unvaccinated people.
That would be very smart thinking.
Although my son is absolutely desperate to get back to school however, I think we might as well wait until Easter.
That grabs us a free fortnight, as the children are off anyway from Good Friday for the following two weeks...
To be clear there is nothing wrong with arguing against this or any other header. Absolutely not, I dont agree with the tone of it myself, although it does make some good points and gets us to reflect.
The issue is the hysterical response, threats to leave the site and criticising the author rather than the merits or not of the argument.
I agree that posting a threat to leave the site is just dumb.
If you want to leave the site, you can just leave it ... quietly. You won't be missed. No need to post, just go.
None of us would be missed, if we were to stop posting.
OTH, criticising Meeks is perfectly fine. He doles it out aplenty, so he can take it.
The thread header writers are not red squirrels. They are not an endangered species needing protection.
1. It's far too early to have an inquiry. Can't you see we're in the middle of trying to deal with the bloody thing? 2. Let's wait until it's all over. Only then can we assess who did well or not. 3. The second/third wave is really not the time to have an inquiry. It's a distraction. We need to have all hands to the pump. 4. Any inquiry must also include all the things we did right. Our vaccination policy was world-beating. 5. The PM cannot be responsible for everything. The people must take their share of the blame. 6. Inquiries take too long and who are judges to understand these things. 7. Apportioning blame does not achieve anything. 8. Lessons will be learned without the need for an inquiry. 9. An inquiry will be used by Brexit-haters to get at Boris. 10. We've got through this. Do we really need to rake over the ashes? 11. This is a distraction. We need to focus on "X" which is what really matters to voters. 12. The voters will have their say at the next GE.
You're welcome. Please feel free to add any more.
Every single one of those is true, so it's a pretty good list!
Looking at the recent slides from government, it seems we might finally have some data on hospitalisations by age.
My 'back-of-a-fag packet, quick, not certified, not even checked, throw them out there to see what PBers think' calculations are in red ink.
Looks like roughly 70% of all hospitalisations are 60+.
Thoughts?
EDIT: note that this is percentage of the sample, (approx 52k) not percentage of total hospitalisations!
Looks interesting.
A handy column to add at the end would be cumulative by age. EG 0.92 0-4, 1.15 5-9 etc
Unless I'm misreading it 18.8% of all hospitalisations are under 50, which just goes to show that although prioritising the elderly is right there should be absolutely no let-up whatsoever once they're done. Once they're done prioritising the 40s should be done straight away, then my own age group of the thirties and so on. That will protect thousands of hospitalisations, let alone other non-hospitalisation risks.
Yes, agreed, I think that's right. That's my reading.
About 81% of hospitalisations are 50+ I think?
Children and teenagers account for just~2% of the total so it's probably not worth vaccinating them unless and until we are awash with the stuff that is approved for paediatric use!
I think that's right anyway, it's all amateur number crunching – it could be wrong, DYOR etc etc
I believe that Pfizer is (at least in the US) judged suitable for 16+ and there is a trial for 11-15 going on the in the US now, again for Pfizer.
1. It's far too early to have an inquiry. Can't you see we're in the middle of trying to deal with the bloody thing? 2. Let's wait until it's all over. Only then can we assess who did well or not. 3. The second/third wave is really not the time to have an inquiry. It's a distraction. We need to have all hands to the pump. 4. Any inquiry must also include all the things we did right. Our vaccination policy was world-beating. 5. The PM cannot be responsible for everything. The people must take their share of the blame. 6. Inquiries take too long and who are judges to understand these things. 7. Apportioning blame does not achieve anything. 8. Lessons will be learned without the need for an inquiry. 9. An inquiry will be used by Brexit-haters to get at Boris. 10. We've got through this. Do we really need to rake over the ashes? 11. This is a distraction. We need to focus on "X" which is what really matters to voters. 12. The voters will have their say at the next GE.
You're welcome. Please feel free to add any more.
Truth and reconciliation in British Politics.. you are aving a larf
Apologies in advance, but you've inadvertently triggered me
The thing that bugged me (other than some of the obvious, much of which covered in the video, it was fun enough) was the weirdness around all the black toffs. I'm not bothered that many in the cast were black - not really bothered by the ethnicity of a character, completely fine with Dev Patel as Copperfield, for example, I'm cool with a black, Asian or female Bond. After finding the unexplained preponderance of black toffs in the first episode a bit jarring, I got used to it. The fact that they were black went unremarked and I decided it was simply being ignored. Fine. Afterall, who cares, although the lack of Asian toffs did seem odd. But then in one episode there's a conversation between two major (black) characters in which one warns the other that their newfound elevation (thanks to the Queen, apparently, in Bridgerton-land) is not certain to continue, tackling head on - in an implausible way - the large number of black upper classes.
So, why not: (i) Just have people of all ethnic groups scattered throughout the cast and ignore it (as stated, I don't care and it wasn't the only unrealistic thing). It becomes completely unimportant. or (ii) Remove the setting from Georgian London and shove it in some fictional kingdom, Bridgerton-land where ethnic mixing went unremarked, even hundreds of years ago. You can keep the sub-plot of a queen struggling with her husbands mental health issues and the subjugation of women.
PS: Does this make me un-woke? Asleep?
It doesn't make you woke, un-woke or anything like that but it does show that we all have problems with our suspension of disbelief when it comes to ethnicity.
I posted on here last year the example of Saoirse Ronan's portrayal of Mary Queen of Scots. The real Mary lived in France between the ages of 5 and 18 and there is no way she would have had the broad Scots accent that the film gave her. Elizabeth I of England was absolutely no Margot Robbie and, at the time of the events portrayed, the wrong age. Yet the only issue that grated in terms of departure from historical truth was the amount of melanin in Adrian Lester's skin. So, I was okay with Mary sounding completely wrong, I was okay with Elizabeth being several orders of magnitiude better looking (and younger) than she would have been, but I wasn't okay with Lord Randolph being a bit darker than he would have been.
That's unconcious bias, racism, on my part. If Lord Randolph had been played by someone with a different hair colour, several inches shorter, with one eye it would not have passed notice if his skin colour was right. We only seem to care when the actor has the wrong skin tone.
May be just a broader sensitivity to 'other'. You were fine with Mary having a Scots accent. I'd have found it just as grating, I think, to have some historical British character with a strong American (or French, whatever) accent. I wouldn't find it particularly grating to have a film set in France or Germany in which everyone speaks with English accents.
We're very sensitive to things that don't "fit in" to our perception of how something was/is. As I said, set Bridgerton somewhere fictional and it wouldn't have grated at all. I think I'd find it just as grating to have a US slavery drama in which all the slaves were white, but give me a fictional place with white slaves and black masters and I could go with that, no problem.
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I expect them just to give a straight answer to the question of what percentage of elderly residents of care homes have received vaccinations rather than obfuscating and dodging and bullshitting. Actually, that's a lie, obfuscating and dodging and bullshitting is exactly what I'd expect.
Perhaps the Tories need to send in the British Army to help?
Looking at the recent slides from government, it seems we might finally have some data on hospitalisations by age.
My 'back-of-a-fag packet, quick, not certified, not even checked, throw them out there to see what PBers think' calculations are in red ink.
Looks like roughly 70% of all hospitalisations are 60+.
Thoughts?
EDIT: note that this is percentage of the sample, (approx 52k) not percentage of total hospitalisations!
Looks interesting.
A handy column to add at the end would be cumulative by age. EG 0.92 0-4, 1.15 5-9 etc
Unless I'm misreading it 18.8% of all hospitalisations are under 50, which just goes to show that although prioritising the elderly is right there should be absolutely no let-up whatsoever once they're done. Once they're done prioritising the 40s should be done straight away, then my own age group of the thirties and so on. That will protect thousands of hospitalisations, let alone other non-hospitalisation risks.
Yes, agreed, I think that's right. That's my reading.
About 81% of hospitalisations are 50+ I think?
Children and teenagers account for just~2% of the total so it's probably not worth vaccinating them unless and until we are awash with the stuff that is approved for paediatric use!
I think that's right anyway, it's all amateur number crunching – it could be wrong, DYOR etc etc
I believe that Pfizer is (at least in the US) judged suitable for 16+ and there is a trial for 11-15 going on the in the US now, again for Pfizer.
Israel are vaccinating all 16-18 year olds as a priority group, to allow school exams to go ahead in the spring. That should produce some useful data shortly. Pfizer vaccine there too.
1. It's far too early to have an inquiry. Can't you see we're in the middle of trying to deal with the bloody thing? 2. Let's wait until it's all over. Only then can we assess who did well or not. 3. The second/third wave is really not the time to have an inquiry. It's a distraction. We need to have all hands to the pump. 4. Any inquiry must also include all the things we did right. Our vaccination policy was world-beating. 5. The PM cannot be responsible for everything. The people must take their share of the blame. 6. Inquiries take too long and who are judges to understand these things. 7. Apportioning blame does not achieve anything. 8. Lessons will be learned without the need for an inquiry. 9. An inquiry will be used by Brexit-haters to get at Boris. 10. We've got through this. Do we really need to rake over the ashes? 11. This is a distraction. We need to focus on "X" which is what really matters to voters. 12. The voters will have their say at the next GE.
You're welcome. Please feel free to add any more.
Truth and reconciliation in British Politics.. you are aving a larf
13. Alistair Meeks
I can offer the truth. You’re on your own with the reconciliation bit.
FYI for anyone who remembers or even cares I reported I probably had a paralyzed vocal cord. I do. The right one. The good news is that the camera they put down your nose is not unpleasant at all. I was surprised. The other bit of good news is the fact that it is the right vocal cord. Apparently the nerve goes straight to that one whereas the left one's nerve goes for a journey around your chest before going back up to your vocal cord (why?). Anyway as I have no obvious lumps in my neck that is good news. One could not jump to that conclusion if it was the left vocal cord.
Off for an MRI on Saturday. Obviously still very nervous until I get results from that.
Everything has been done very quickly. Not quickly enough for me, but nevertheless quickly by any reasonable standards.
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I expect them just to give a straight answer to the question what percentage of elderly residents of care homes have received vaccinations rather than obfuscating and dodging and bullshitting. Actually, that's a lie, obfuscating and dodging and bullshitting is exactly what I'd expect.
Perhaps the Tories need to send in the British Army to help?
Why would help be needed if everyone who can be vaccinated has been?
The obfuscation is throwing up smokescreens like this to justify not using vaccine doses available.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
This crisis isn't over yet. I think the numbers will tell a more complex story than you think when it is.
I think the Government should (must) commission a full independent review into the lessons learned from the pandemic, particularly on transmission vectors, containment, the role of international travel, track & trace, the effectiveness of lockdowns, the tragedy of care homes, and the resilience of the NHS. It should do this in tandem with the economic, social and political factors in play too, and be supported by reasoned analysis that allows the factors to be balanced together. It should also look at lazy pre-Covid assumptions made by ministers and Whitehall that, despite this being top of the national risk register, it would be just like a flu pandemic - confirmation bias did all the work to convince them that nothing special was needed on top.
If that commission identifies gross negligence or incompetence by this PM in the story of Covid then, yes, this PM should honourably take full responsibility for that and resign; it won't bother me, I was never impressed by Boris in the first place.
However, if the criteria is solely unnecessary extra deaths then so should the EU Commission resign, and many continental politicians, who prioritised saving money over early vaccine procurement, thus guaranteeing many more tragedies in the months to come.
Funnily enough, I don't hear you mention much about them.
The EU didn't get into its mess like that, though, did it? If anything it was prioritising equity that led to their problems, and the EU itself didn't muscle into the matter. Germany was relatively quick off the mark and had its heads of agreement in place with AZN last spring, for 400 million doses with delivery starting late 2020, as part of a consortium with Italy, France and Holland.
It was only when other countries, led by Belgium, complained that every European country going it alone could leave some of the smaller ones out in the cold that Germany, as an attempt to be helpful, suggested that the procurement process be handed over to the EU. Who therefore re-started relatively late. Big mistake by the Germans - and the EU performance subsequently has been risible - but it wasn't desperation to save money nor lack of initial speed that created the problem.
Yep. Poor execution of the right approach. The notion of 27 countries in Europe doing their own thing on vaccines is sub-optimal. But it was very poor execution and the upshot is unfortunate in 2 ways. First and foremost, it will cost the lives of many EU citizens. Second, it is grist to the mill of europhobes throughout the continent. Domestic Leaver triumphalism is irritating but of no great consequence because we are not EU members. I'm thinking of sentiment in places like Italy and France and (especially) Germany. The thought of Germany turning against the EU and deciding to "break free" and pursue a narrow "national interest" does not fill me with joy. I prefer the Big D to be the sort of country that, as with the vaccine, allows the collective interest to influence decisions.
A further thought occurs. Would the EU's vaccine result have been better if the UK were still a player in Brussels? I suspect it would have been. In which case we have here an example of Brexit damaging the EU in quite a grave way. There could be more of this to come. Probably the EU will survive and prosper without us, I hope and think so, but who can be sure? When I voted Remain it was because I thought Brexit would be bad for Britain and would be bad for the EU. If anything the latter was my main fear. This vaccine shambles and its potential aftermath puts me right back in that mindset.
I've kept clear of the subject of the EU recently as it is a bit of an open goal for a Remainer like me considering the vaccine shambles, particularly compared to the really decent job we in the UK are doing.
A good call. Has your throat cleared up?
EDIT: Oops sorry, I see you've just this minute posted an update on it!
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
Not really. If all who can be vaccinated have been then it is finished for now.
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
This crisis isn't over yet. I think the numbers will tell a more complex story than you think when it is.
I think the Government should (must) commission a full independent review into the lessons learned from the pandemic, particularly on transmission vectors, containment, the role of international travel, track & trace, the effectiveness of lockdowns, the tragedy of care homes, and the resilience of the NHS. It should do this in tandem with the economic, social and political factors in play too, and be supported by reasoned analysis that allows the factors to be balanced together. It should also look at lazy pre-Covid assumptions made by ministers and Whitehall that, despite this being top of the national risk register, it would be just like a flu pandemic - confirmation bias did all the work to convince them that nothing special was needed on top.
If that commission identifies gross negligence or incompetence by this PM in the story of Covid then, yes, this PM should honourably take full responsibility for that and resign; it won't bother me, I was never impressed by Boris in the first place.
However, if the criteria is solely unnecessary extra deaths then so should the EU Commission resign, and many continental politicians, who prioritised saving money over early vaccine procurement, thus guaranteeing many more tragedies in the months to come.
Funnily enough, I don't hear you mention much about them.
The EU didn't get into its mess like that, though, did it? If anything it was prioritising equity that led to their problems, and the EU itself didn't muscle into the matter. Germany was relatively quick off the mark and had its heads of agreement in place with AZN last spring, for 400 million doses with delivery starting late 2020, as part of a consortium with Italy, France and Holland.
It was only when other countries, led by Belgium, complained that every European country going it alone could leave some of the smaller ones out in the cold that Germany, as an attempt to be helpful, suggested that the procurement process be handed over to the EU. Who therefore re-started relatively late. Big mistake by the Germans - and the EU performance subsequently has been risible - but it wasn't desperation to save money nor lack of initial speed that created the problem.
Yep. Poor execution of the right approach. The notion of 27 countries in Europe doing their own thing on vaccines is sub-optimal. But it was very poor execution and the upshot is unfortunate in 2 ways. First and foremost, it will cost the lives of many EU citizens. Second, it is grist to the mill of europhobes throughout the continent. Domestic Leaver triumphalism is irritating but of no great consequence because we are not EU members. I'm thinking of sentiment in places like Italy and France and (especially) Germany. The thought of Germany turning against the EU and deciding to "break free" and pursue a narrow "national interest" does not fill me with joy. I prefer the Big D to be the sort of country that, as with the vaccine, allows the collective interest to influence decisions.
A further thought occurs. Would the EU's vaccine result have been better if the UK were still a player in Brussels? I suspect it would have been. In which case we have here an example of Brexit damaging the EU in quite a grave way. There could be more of this to come. Probably the EU will survive and prosper without us, I hope and think so, but who can be sure? When I voted Remain it was because I thought Brexit would be bad for Britain and would be bad for the EU. If anything the latter was my main fear. This vaccine shambles and its potential aftermath puts me right back in that mindset.
I've kept clear of the subject of the EU recently as it is a bit of an open goal for a Remainer like me considering the vaccine shambles, particularly compared to the really decent job we in the UK are doing.
A good call. Has your throat cleared up?
EDIT: Oops sorry, I see you've just this minute posted an update on it!
If so, Zahawi is right that we should get everyone 50+ jabbed before we loosen anything.
JFGID – and start to open up a bit by Easter...
I expect the plan (like it was in the summer) will be to remove restrictions fortnightly. So 8 March schools resume, 22 March non-essential shops etc, etc
The advantage of that is that it will be taking us less than a fortnight to vaccinate an age cohort. So every relaxation should see fewer cases if we're keeping R below 1 and fewer vulnerable unvaccinated people.
Two week intervals aren't quite long enough to gauge the effect of each step on case levels and make and implement decisions based on that. Three weeks would be a lot better.
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I expect them just to give a straight answer to the question what percentage of elderly residents of care homes have received vaccinations rather than obfuscating and dodging and bullshitting. Actually, that's a lie, obfuscating and dodging and bullshitting is exactly what I'd expect.
Perhaps the Tories need to send in the British Army to help?
Why would help be needed if everyone who can be vaccinated has been?
The obfuscation is throwing up smokescreens like this to justify not using vaccine doses available.
Move on, now is not the time to look at these particular numbers.
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
Not really. If all who can be vaccinated have been then it is finished for now.
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
So we should exclude French anti-vaxxers from their statistics?
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
Not really. If all who can be vaccinated have been then it is finished for now.
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
They can;t be vaccinated against their will, but the government can use lockdown as a weapon to put enormous pressure on them to get vaccinations.
Hence the new moved goalposts of 'everybody over 50' today (pored over by the faithful and the gullible on here, soon to drop to the over 40s).
The government can turn then around and say too few have come forward, and so lockdown remains.
As I say luckily Sunak appears to be waking up to this. Then again he has seen the books. He has seen at least some the carnage these measures are causing (Reinforced by the BoE today). And in terms of the SAGE committee he is starting to smell the rat that some of us have been smelling for months.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
This crisis isn't over yet. I think the numbers will tell a more complex story than you think when it is.
I think the Government should (must) commission a full independent review into the lessons learned from the pandemic, particularly on transmission vectors, containment, the role of international travel, track & trace, the effectiveness of lockdowns, the tragedy of care homes, and the resilience of the NHS. It should do this in tandem with the economic, social and political factors in play too, and be supported by reasoned analysis that allows the factors to be balanced together. It should also look at lazy pre-Covid assumptions made by ministers and Whitehall that, despite this being top of the national risk register, it would be just like a flu pandemic - confirmation bias did all the work to convince them that nothing special was needed on top.
If that commission identifies gross negligence or incompetence by this PM in the story of Covid then, yes, this PM should honourably take full responsibility for that and resign; it won't bother me, I was never impressed by Boris in the first place.
However, if the criteria is solely unnecessary extra deaths then so should the EU Commission resign, and many continental politicians, who prioritised saving money over early vaccine procurement, thus guaranteeing many more tragedies in the months to come.
Funnily enough, I don't hear you mention much about them.
The EU didn't get into its mess like that, though, did it? If anything it was prioritising equity that led to their problems, and the EU itself didn't muscle into the matter. Germany was relatively quick off the mark and had its heads of agreement in place with AZN last spring, for 400 million doses with delivery starting late 2020, as part of a consortium with Italy, France and Holland.
It was only when other countries, led by Belgium, complained that every European country going it alone could leave some of the smaller ones out in the cold that Germany, as an attempt to be helpful, suggested that the procurement process be handed over to the EU. Who therefore re-started relatively late. Big mistake by the Germans - and the EU performance subsequently has been risible - but it wasn't desperation to save money nor lack of initial speed that created the problem.
Yep. Poor execution of the right approach. The notion of 27 countries in Europe doing their own thing on vaccines is sub-optimal. But it was very poor execution and the upshot is unfortunate in 2 ways. First and foremost, it will cost the lives of many EU citizens. Second, it is grist to the mill of europhobes throughout the continent. Domestic Leaver triumphalism is irritating but of no great consequence because we are not EU members. I'm thinking of sentiment in places like Italy and France and (especially) Germany. The thought of Germany turning against the EU and deciding to "break free" and pursue a narrow "national interest" does not fill me with joy. I prefer the Big D to be the sort of country that, as with the vaccine, allows the collective interest to influence decisions.
A further thought occurs. Would the EU's vaccine result have been better if the UK were still a player in Brussels? I suspect it would have been. In which case we have here an example of Brexit damaging the EU in quite a grave way. There could be more of this to come. Probably the EU will survive and prosper without us, I hope and think so, but who can be sure? When I voted Remain it was because I thought Brexit would be bad for Britain and would be bad for the EU. If anything the latter was my main fear. This vaccine shambles and its potential aftermath puts me right back in that mindset.
I've kept clear of the subject of the EU recently as it is a bit of an open goal for a Remainer like me considering the vaccine shambles, particularly compared to the really decent job we in the UK are doing.
A good call. Has your throat cleared up?
EDIT: Oops sorry, I see you've just this minute posted an update on it!
Nice that you remembered.
I can relate, that's probably why. I had a cancer scare 5 years ago. Got myself in a right old tizz.
Presumably someone explained to him that declining the invitation of the committee was likely to result in a warrant being sought.
This questioning will take place after the committee have had the chance to absorb Salmond's written statement which raises some rather awkward questions for Murrell. It should be an interesting week. Much will depend on how much of a restriction is put on the committee members this time.
Catastrophic decision making is a feature of this government
That's all great as far as it goes but
(1) anyone who thought that you could become a third country with regard to the EU without NTBs isn't really up with reality and (2) a lot of the critics are emulating the DUP by opposing everything and proposing nothing serious and precise about what is better. Which decisions. What improvements. How implemented.
BTW yes, we have been told untruths by government.
EEA says Hi!
Yes, the number of Remainers and gradualist Leavers who in truth would be comfortable with 'Norway for Now' means it was a massive missed opportunity.
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
Not really. If all who can be vaccinated have been then it is finished for now.
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
We want to see how many people have been vaccinated so that we have an idea of how successful the vaccination campaign has been, and how close to vaccine-acquired herd immunity we are.
We want these numbers for subgroups because we are vaccinating by subgroups. It doesn't have to do with whether the next groups on the list should be vaccinated.
If there are large numbers of people who have refused the vaccine we need to know that. If there are large numbers of care homes that remain to have vaccinations because of outbreaks we need to know that.
Huh. Turns out the public and frontline workers have more of a sense of proportion and reality than embittered writers of hatchet jobs. Who could have seen that one coming?
Some of my best friends have been Jewesses and I married one of them. I've employed Jews, one of whom was a superb worker. The rest were a bit meh, mind.
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
Not really. If all who can be vaccinated have been then it is finished for now.
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
Very eloquent, as ever. And much of it is inarguable, the only thing in HGM's defence is that Britain WAS uniquely vulnerable, ticking almost every single box for Particularly Nasty Covid - a world capital with myriad international connections, unusually high population density, high proportion of BAME population, elevated levels of obesity, no tradition of mask wearing, rather elderly citizens, an individualistic culture resistant to nannying, mobile populace WITHIN the country, cool weather meaning life goes on indoors in non-ventilated spaces....
Does any other country tick ALL those boxes? Maybe Belgium? Which says something.
Given all that, I reckon we'd have been in the top five for death tolls - or thereabouts - whatever the government did. But yes, they also made grave mistakes, from the idiotic advice on masks, at the start, to the chaos of quarantine throughout. Possibly tens of thousands died who didn't need to.
Will it matter, in the long run? No. Because Mr Meeks does not, perhaps, quite understand human psychology in this instance.
People remember wars, but they forget plagues. Deliberately. This is because plagues are WORSE than wars, they have no heroic narrative, no memories of camaraderie, plagues are just horrible, grinding nightmares from which we yearn to escape, and never look back.
So the government will likely get away with its chaotic errors. Everyone will want to forget.
SeanT, ex of this parish, wrote on this theme early in the pandemic.
But if patriotism and the flag need 'defending' by Labour against their own they have a problem that moderate working class voters can't solve for them. Until it is automatic and axiomatic that that is where they stand they will struggle to get a voice among the 40% Tiory votes - that's the ones they need.
Does the centre left SNP have a problem with Scottish Patriotism and Scottish flag? Look at the polls and work it out.
Huh. Turns out the public and frontline workers have more of a sense of proportion and reality than embittered writers of hatchet jobs. Who could have seen that one coming?
Its a false choice.
It isn't the government or the population. Respiratory disease always explodes in winter. Its like asking whether the government or the population is responsible for the increase in snow.
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
Not really. If all who can be vaccinated have been then it is finished for now.
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
Flags really do trigger some leftie Labourites don't they.
Is flag waving an issue like this in other countries? Do lefties in places like France have some meltdown about this? Is a genuine question. I honestly don't know the answer. It is considered even of note if a politician has a flag of their own country?
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
Not really. If all who can be vaccinated have been then it is finished for now.
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
We want to see how many people have been vaccinated so that we have an idea of how successful the vaccination campaign has been, and how close to vaccine-acquired herd immunity we are.
We want these numbers for subgroups because we are vaccinating by subgroups. It doesn't have to do with whether the next groups on the list should be vaccinated.
If there are large numbers of people who have refused the vaccine we need to know that. If there are large numbers of care homes that remain to have vaccinations because of outbreaks we need to know that.
HMG should not be hiding these numbers.
It is quite interesting to see what is being... not said.
1. It's far too early to have an inquiry. Can't you see we're in the middle of trying to deal with the bloody thing? 2. Let's wait until it's all over. Only then can we assess who did well or not. 3. The second/third wave is really not the time to have an inquiry. It's a distraction. We need to have all hands to the pump. 4. Any inquiry must also include all the things we did right. Our vaccination policy was world-beating. 5. The PM cannot be responsible for everything. The people must take their share of the blame. 6. Inquiries take too long and who are judges to understand these things. 7. Apportioning blame does not achieve anything. 8. Lessons will be learned without the need for an inquiry. 9. An inquiry will be used by Brexit-haters to get at Boris. 10. We've got through this. Do we really need to rake over the ashes? 11. This is a distraction. We need to focus on "X" which is what really matters to voters. 12. The voters will have their say at the next GE.
You're welcome. Please feel free to add any more.
13. Maybe we should have had an enquiry, but it's all ancient history now.
There will be an enquiry. Several years later. It will drag on for years and years, providing high quality food, drink and accomodation as well as good salaries for huge numbers of already well heeled participants. Lessons will be learned. Recommendations at great length will be made to justify the above, (how could it be otherwise?) but no one will be found at fault. And they will all be dead or long retired by then anyways.
Yes, the more comprehensive the inquiry, the less of a problem it is for anyone in government right now.
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
Not really. If all who can be vaccinated have been then it is finished for now.
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
We want to see how many people have been vaccinated so that we have an idea of how successful the vaccination campaign has been, and how close to vaccine-acquired herd immunity we are.
We want these numbers for subgroups because we are vaccinating by subgroups. It doesn't have to do with whether the next groups on the list should be vaccinated.
If there are large numbers of people who have refused the vaccine we need to know that. If there are large numbers of care homes that remain to have vaccinations because of outbreaks we need to know that.
HMG should not be hiding these numbers.
It is quite interesting to see what is being... not said.
Flags really do trigger some leftie Labourites don't they.
Is flag waving an issue like this in other countries? Do lefties in places like France have some meltdown about this? Is a genuine question. I honestly don't know the answer. It is considered even of note if a politician has a flag of their own country?
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
Not really. If all who can be vaccinated have been then it is finished for now.
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
So we should exclude French anti-vaxxers from their statistics?
Sort of, yes.
If the French say they will vaccinate all over 70s who want a vaccine then later say all over 70s who want a vaccine have been vaccinated then yes I would expect that to be excluding antivaxxers who rejected the vaccine.
Unless you're going to compel people by force there will be an element who refuse.
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
I think you wouldn't want to send a vaccination team into a care home with an outbreak, since you'd them have to put that team into isolation and they wouldn't be able to inject people for two weeks.
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
Not really. If all who can be vaccinated have been then it is finished for now.
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
We want to see how many people have been vaccinated so that we have an idea of how successful the vaccination campaign has been, and how close to vaccine-acquired herd immunity we are.
We want these numbers for subgroups because we are vaccinating by subgroups. It doesn't have to do with whether the next groups on the list should be vaccinated.
If there are large numbers of people who have refused the vaccine we need to know that. If there are large numbers of care homes that remain to have vaccinations because of outbreaks we need to know that.
HMG should not be hiding these numbers.
It is quite interesting to see what is being... not said.
Flags really do trigger some leftie Labourites don't they.
Is flag waving an issue like this in other countries? Do lefties in places like France have some meltdown about this? Is a genuine question. I honestly don't know the answer. It is considered even of note if a politician has a flag of their own country?
The American Left is now developing this weird lefty English anti-patriotism (identified decades ago by Orwell, of course) - discomfort with flag and anthem, general dislike of patriotism because it is associated with the alt right, Trump, rednecks, etc
Germany also has it (see the video of Merkel irritably grabbing and concealing a German flag) - but for very different reasons.
Not sure I've seen it anywhere else.
Actually, I have: Australia is getting quite a nasty case. See the campaign to move Australia Day.
But if patriotism and the flag need 'defending' by Labour against their own they have a problem that moderate working class voters can't solve for them. Until it is automatic and axiomatic that that is where they stand they will struggle to get a voice among the 40% Tiory votes - that's the ones they need.
Does the centre left SNP have a problem with Scottish Patriotism and Scottish flag? Look at the polls and work it out.
The fear is that the notion of transforming Britain is taking a back seat to virtue signalling about loving Britain.
Flags really do trigger some leftie Labourites don't they.
Is flag waving an issue like this in other countries? Do lefties in places like France have some meltdown about this? Is a genuine question. I honestly don't know the answer. It is considered even of note if a politician has a flag of their own country?
The American Left is now developing this weird lefty English anti-patriotism (identified decades ago by Orwell, of course) - discomfort with flag and anthem, general dislike of patriotism because it is associated with the alt right, Trump, rednecks, etc
Germany also has it (see the video of Merkel irritably grabbing and concealing a German flag) - but for very different reasons.
Not sure I've seen it anywhere else.
Actually, I have: Australia is getting quite a nasty case. See the campaign to move Australia Day.
Australia definitely has a bad bout of the wokeism disease*.....and then all those keyboard warriors were shocked when the country voted for the right wing lot.
* And still a lot of racism (far worse than here). In that respect similar to US, with the wokeys and the racists.
Apologies in advance, but you've inadvertently triggered me
The thing that bugged me (other than some of the obvious, much of which covered in the video, it was fun enough) was the weirdness around all the black toffs. I'm not bothered that many in the cast were black - not really bothered by the ethnicity of a character, completely fine with Dev Patel as Copperfield, for example, I'm cool with a black, Asian or female Bond. After finding the unexplained preponderance of black toffs in the first episode a bit jarring, I got used to it. The fact that they were black went unremarked and I decided it was simply being ignored. Fine. Afterall, who cares, although the lack of Asian toffs did seem odd. But then in one episode there's a conversation between two major (black) characters in which one warns the other that their newfound elevation (thanks to the Queen, apparently, in Bridgerton-land) is not certain to continue, tackling head on - in an implausible way - the large number of black upper classes.
So, why not: (i) Just have people of all ethnic groups scattered throughout the cast and ignore it (as stated, I don't care and it wasn't the only unrealistic thing). It becomes completely unimportant. or (ii) Remove the setting from Georgian London and shove it in some fictional kingdom, Bridgerton-land where ethnic mixing went unremarked, even hundreds of years ago. You can keep the sub-plot of a queen struggling with her husbands mental health issues and the subjugation of women.
PS: Does this make me un-woke? Asleep?
Or just overthinking a fairly messily written bit of fun ? Almost certainly more will be revealed (double entendre intended) in the next series.
There are source books, apparently. Can't say I'm greatly tempted to read them.
I can't help but agree with the OP - I have no issue at all with colour blind casting, or indeed gay men playing straight and vice versa. I do get a bit miffed at suggestions only a gay actor can play a gay character, or a disabled role must go to a disabled actor. The whole point of acting is that its an act.
But if patriotism and the flag need 'defending' by Labour against their own they have a problem that moderate working class voters can't solve for them. Until it is automatic and axiomatic that that is where they stand they will struggle to get a voice among the 40% Tiory votes - that's the ones they need.
Does the centre left SNP have a problem with Scottish Patriotism and Scottish flag? Look at the polls and work it out.
The fear is that the notion of transforming Britain is taking a back seat to virtue signalling about loving Britain.
There is a large and powerful leftist movement in England. Unfortunately it falls between three stools. Yellow, green and red. They need to talk. And maybe merge.
If Richard Burgon says you're doing it wrong, there's a 99% chance you're doing it right.
Only among supporters of the Labour party, would the party leader's having a national flag in his office be the subject of hundreds of column inches. It's the sort of thing that really excites the party members, when the general public are at best indifferent and more likely supportive of flags.
As with most things, Burgon is wrong and Starmer right.
Flags really do trigger some leftie Labourites don't they.
Is flag waving an issue like this in other countries? Do lefties in places like France have some meltdown about this? Is a genuine question. I honestly don't know the answer. It is considered even of note if a politician has a flag of their own country?
The American Left is now developing this weird lefty English anti-patriotism (identified decades ago by Orwell, of course) - discomfort with flag and anthem, general dislike of patriotism because it is associated with the alt right, Trump, rednecks, etc
Germany also has it (see the video of Merkel irritably grabbing and concealing a German flag) - but for very different reasons.
Not sure I've seen it anywhere else.
Actually, I have: Australia is getting quite a nasty case. See the campaign to move Australia Day.
When you're tired of getting a stirring in your pants at the sight of some muscly Paras in mufti marching to protect a statue of Churchill, you're tired of life.
The head of the UK’s biggest chain of airport hotels has said his company has been “kept in the dark” over the government’s plans for hotel quarantine.
Boris Johnson announced last month that all arrivals from 33 high-risk countries would be required to go into quarantine for ten days to stop the importation of “vaccine-busting” strains of the coronavirus.
However, the government has yet to announce when the new policy will be implemented, with Whitehall sources suggesting it may not be in place until the week of February 15.
Rob Paterson, chief executive of the Best Western hotel group, said the government had yet to have any detailed conversations about the policy. He said that if he had announced a major programme without any details “I’m not sure I’d have a job”....
..Paterson told Today on BBC Radio 4 that Best Western is “yet to understand exactly what protocols are required of the hotels”.
He said: “I think in any normal company if you went out and announced a programme nationally and you hadn’t thought about how you were going to plan that, and you hadn’t spoken to the people involved . . . I’m not sure I’d have a job if I did that in my company.
“To this day we simply haven’t heard anything despite multiple offers. We’ve got all these contacts in other countries that have already rolled this out for some time. They could offer some really valuable support and we’re just simply kept in the dark.”
Paterson added that hoteliers “need some assurance” over demand levels, pricing and security measures.
But if patriotism and the flag need 'defending' by Labour against their own they have a problem that moderate working class voters can't solve for them. Until it is automatic and axiomatic that that is where they stand they will struggle to get a voice among the 40% Tiory votes - that's the ones they need.
Does the centre left SNP have a problem with Scottish Patriotism and Scottish flag? Look at the polls and work it out.
The fear is that the notion of transforming Britain is taking a back seat to virtue signalling about loving Britain.
Why would you want to 'transform' a place if you genuinely love it? 'I love you so much, I've booked a complete transformation including some radical surgery for you, my darling' may not be the world's most winning message for Valentine's Day...
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
This crisis isn't over yet. I think the numbers will tell a more complex story than you think when it is.
I think the Government should (must) commission a full independent review into the lessons learned from the pandemic, particularly on transmission vectors, containment, the role of international travel, track & trace, the effectiveness of lockdowns, the tragedy of care homes, and the resilience of the NHS. It should do this in tandem with the economic, social and political factors in play too, and be supported by reasoned analysis that allows the factors to be balanced together. It should also look at lazy pre-Covid assumptions made by ministers and Whitehall that, despite this being top of the national risk register, it would be just like a flu pandemic - confirmation bias did all the work to convince them that nothing special was needed on top.
If that commission identifies gross negligence or incompetence by this PM in the story of Covid then, yes, this PM should honourably take full responsibility for that and resign; it won't bother me, I was never impressed by Boris in the first place.
However, if the criteria is solely unnecessary extra deaths then so should the EU Commission resign, and many continental politicians, who prioritised saving money over early vaccine procurement, thus guaranteeing many more tragedies in the months to come.
Funnily enough, I don't hear you mention much about them.
The EU didn't get into its mess like that, though, did it? If anything it was prioritising equity that led to their problems, and the EU itself didn't muscle into the matter. Germany was relatively quick off the mark and had its heads of agreement in place with AZN last spring, for 400 million doses with delivery starting late 2020, as part of a consortium with Italy, France and Holland.
It was only when other countries, led by Belgium, complained that every European country going it alone could leave some of the smaller ones out in the cold that Germany, as an attempt to be helpful, suggested that the procurement process be handed over to the EU. Who therefore re-started relatively late. Big mistake by the Germans - and the EU performance subsequently has been risible - but it wasn't desperation to save money nor lack of initial speed that created the problem.
Yep. Poor execution of the right approach. The notion of 27 countries in Europe doing their own thing on vaccines is sub-optimal. But it was very poor execution and the upshot is unfortunate in 2 ways. First and foremost, it will cost the lives of many EU citizens. Second, it is grist to the mill of europhobes throughout the continent. Domestic Leaver triumphalism is irritating but of no great consequence because we are not EU members. I'm thinking of sentiment in places like Italy and France and (especially) Germany. The thought of Germany turning against the EU and deciding to "break free" and pursue a narrow "national interest" does not fill me with joy. I prefer the Big D to be the sort of country that, as with the vaccine, allows the collective interest to influence decisions.
A further thought occurs. Would the EU's vaccine result have been better if the UK were still a player in Brussels? I suspect it would have been. In which case we have here an example of Brexit damaging the EU in quite a grave way. There could be more of this to come. Probably the EU will survive and prosper without us, I hope and think so, but who can be sure? When I voted Remain it was because I thought Brexit would be bad for Britain and would be bad for the EU. If anything the latter was my main fear. This vaccine shambles and its potential aftermath puts me right back in that mindset.
Saying it was the right approach is a stretch.
It remains a national competence and the EU started with no budget. Essentially it found itself volunteered by Germany, half way through the process, to co-ordinate a 27-way consortium where everything had to be agreed by all the participants and any money raised from them.
Which isn’t to say that the EU handled it well, but it was a difficult approach from the outset. Some countries like France, Italy and the Netherlands were keen to crack on and invest in development, like we were, but others around the periphery of Europe felt last summer that the worse was over, or that they had managed to dodge the worst of the virus.
In a parallel universe where the EU started with both the power and the budget to run a Europe-wide procurement programme, who is to say how things turned out.
What was actually done turned into the worst of both worlds.
But if patriotism and the flag need 'defending' by Labour against their own they have a problem that moderate working class voters can't solve for them. Until it is automatic and axiomatic that that is where they stand they will struggle to get a voice among the 40% Tiory votes - that's the ones they need.
Does the centre left SNP have a problem with Scottish Patriotism and Scottish flag? Look at the polls and work it out.
The fear is that the notion of transforming Britain is taking a back seat to virtue signalling about loving Britain.
Why would you want to 'transform' a place if you genuinely love it? 'I love you so much, I've booked a complete transformation including some radical surgery for you, my darling' may not be the world's most winning message for Valentine's Day...
Fair enough.
Hey former red wall constituencies, you know that cuddly puppy of transformative change that we sold you?
Early September being the time we should have taken action to halt the spread of Covid.
Yep - hindsight says stamp on it then, the last 4 months would have been a lot better. I think the issue was that the summer loosening seemed to work without really increasing cases, but by September a slight increase was compounded by new imports (overseas holidays), new variants emerging, the return to school and then the Uni migration.
Even keeping clamped at the start of December until a one day relax would have been useful.
Hindsight is great. (And I know that some have advocated this, and that but government is always about trade offs. Its possible that if those in charge were of a more pessimistic bent, then things would have been different).
Flags really do trigger some leftie Labourites don't they.
Is flag waving an issue like this in other countries? Do lefties in places like France have some meltdown about this? Is a genuine question. I honestly don't know the answer. It is considered even of note if a politician has a flag of their own country?
The American Left is now developing this weird lefty English anti-patriotism (identified decades ago by Orwell, of course) - discomfort with flag and anthem, general dislike of patriotism because it is associated with the alt right, Trump, rednecks, etc
Germany also has it (see the video of Merkel irritably grabbing and concealing a German flag) - but for very different reasons.
Not sure I've seen it anywhere else.
Actually, I have: Australia is getting quite a nasty case. See the campaign to move Australia Day.
Australia definitely has a bad bout of the wokeism disease*.....and then all those keyboard warriors were shocked when the country voted for the right wing lot.
* And still a lot of racism (far worse than here). In that respect similar to US, with the wokeys and the racists.
On the last - almost as if there is a connective feedback between the levels of woke and racism, isn't it?
But if patriotism and the flag need 'defending' by Labour against their own they have a problem that moderate working class voters can't solve for them. Until it is automatic and axiomatic that that is where they stand they will struggle to get a voice among the 40% Tiory votes - that's the ones they need.
Does the centre left SNP have a problem with Scottish Patriotism and Scottish flag? Look at the polls and work it out.
The fear is that the notion of transforming Britain is taking a back seat to virtue signalling about loving Britain.
The issue is that this thinktank has correctly identified a major problem for Labour - it is perceived as being anti-patriotic, and as contemptuous of its ex-core-vote: the white working class. For the very good reason that it IS.
However, the same thinktank has failed to find any kind of solution. The idea you can magic this away with a few flags or "veterans at party rallies" (really?) is painfully simplistic. It will just look cringe.
What can Labour do? Dunno. Copy the SNP, somehow? The SNP's patriotism works because it has successfully otherised the English. The Scots are proud and plucky but oppressed, we must throw off the colonial yoke, all that bullshit. It is the patriotism of grievance, and the underdog.
Labour needs to find someone who is theoretically oppressing England, and then theatrically hate them. China?
A typically one eyed article from Mr Meeks. Very quick on the mark with 108000 deaths and desperatly quick to bring in soldiers deaths. But... Pro rata Portugal's death toll would be 80,000. Its health service is effectively collapsing, and running out oxygen. Belgium's toll would be 120,000.
By hey Mr Meeks, you carry on with your shroud waving numbers and misrepresent the country and the govt. Its a pandemic Mr Meeks. It does not stick to rules (a bit like reckless hedonistic youths). And its mutating. Go ahead and nitpick and second guess to fit your prejudice.
This govt has certainly not done any worse, except possibly by those countries who are happy to be subservient to rigid orders. And of course the EU fall down at the first hurdle.
And at the deep fundamental level our govt has led the world with a way to get out of this pandemic.
Not that you would guess from the usual nonsense from Mr Meeks. If you dont have anything worthwhile to say Mr Meeks just don't bother saying it.
Flags really do trigger some leftie Labourites don't they.
Is flag waving an issue like this in other countries? Do lefties in places like France have some meltdown about this? Is a genuine question. I honestly don't know the answer. It is considered even of note if a politician has a flag of their own country?
The American Left is now developing this weird lefty English anti-patriotism (identified decades ago by Orwell, of course) - discomfort with flag and anthem, general dislike of patriotism because it is associated with the alt right, Trump, rednecks, etc
Germany also has it (see the video of Merkel irritably grabbing and concealing a German flag) - but for very different reasons.
Not sure I've seen it anywhere else.
Actually, I have: Australia is getting quite a nasty case. See the campaign to move Australia Day.
Australia definitely has a bad bout of the wokeism disease*.....and then all those keyboard warriors were shocked when the country voted for the right wing lot.
* And still a lot of racism (far worse than here). In that respect similar to US, with the wokeys and the racists.
On the last - almost as if there is a connective feedback between the levels of woke and racism, isn't it?
Perhaps....before Covid, I had a painful dinner with some friends of friends who had recently move from Oz...they were painfully woke, constantly going on about how much they missed the diversity of living in major city in Oz verus now living rurally in the UK and how their kids were missing out on so much because their school wasn't diverse enough and the government should force more by busing of different ethnicities to rural schools.
It did feel rather like they were really trying to sound as far away from a sterotypical ozzie with questionable attitudes to the indigenous people.
To be clear there is nothing wrong with arguing against this or any other header. Absolutely not, I dont agree with the tone of it myself, although it does make some good points and gets us to reflect.
The issue is the hysterical response, threats to leave the site and criticising the author rather than the merits or not of the argument.
I agree that posting a threat to leave the site is just dumb.
If you want to leave the site, you can just leave it ... quietly. You won't be missed. No need to post, just go.
None of us would be missed, if we were to stop posting.
OTH, criticising Meeks is perfectly fine. He doles it out aplenty, so he can take it.
The thread header writers are not red squirrels. They are not an endangered species needing protection.
I slightly disagree, there are some on here whose opinions I value very much indeed. Its good to have different view points made, and often made very well indeed. So much better than echo chambers of social media. I would miss some of you...
I believe the vaccine can't be given to those who are already infected, can it? So surely that's exactly what we should expect.
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
According to yesterday’s webinar, the vaccine is only denied to people who have tested positive within the previous few weeks.
He appears to have sympathy with the argument that getting the virus is akin to a first dose of vaccine and there may be merit in the suggestion that it be followed by a second dose after recovery.
Also worth noting, in relation to case homes, that they will have a fair few people who won’t be given the vaccine for various other medical reasons.
But if patriotism and the flag need 'defending' by Labour against their own they have a problem that moderate working class voters can't solve for them. Until it is automatic and axiomatic that that is where they stand they will struggle to get a voice among the 40% Tiory votes - that's the ones they need.
Does the centre left SNP have a problem with Scottish Patriotism and Scottish flag? Look at the polls and work it out.
The fear is that the notion of transforming Britain is taking a back seat to virtue signalling about loving Britain.
Flags really do trigger some leftie Labourites don't they.
Is flag waving an issue like this in other countries? Do lefties in places like France have some meltdown about this? Is a genuine question. I honestly don't know the answer. It is considered even of note if a politician has a flag of their own country?
The American Left is now developing this weird lefty English anti-patriotism (identified decades ago by Orwell, of course) - discomfort with flag and anthem, general dislike of patriotism because it is associated with the alt right, Trump, rednecks, etc
Germany also has it (see the video of Merkel irritably grabbing and concealing a German flag) - but for very different reasons.
Not sure I've seen it anywhere else.
Actually, I have: Australia is getting quite a nasty case. See the campaign to move Australia Day.
Australia definitely has a bad bout of the wokeism disease*.....and then all those keyboard warriors were shocked when the country voted for the right wing lot.
* And still a lot of racism (far worse than here). In that respect similar to US, with the wokeys and the racists.
Yeah, you can see and hear overt racism in places like the Northern Territory or Queensland in a way unthinkable in Britain.
It's not just one side, tho: aboriginal Australians can be violent and aggressive towards white people, just for being white.
Given the tragic history, the latter is more understandable.
Comments
Am I reading this correctly?
If so, Zahawi is right that we should get everyone 50+ jabbed before we loosen anything.
JFGID – and start to open up a bit by Easter...
So vaccination the elderly and vulnerable will bring down deaths rapidly, but not have as much effect on hosptalisations.
...Participants will be allocated, at random, (rather like a flip of a coin) to receive one dose of one approved vaccine and a second dose of either the same approved vaccine, or a dose of a different approved vaccine. Participants will also be allocated at random to the timing of receiving these doses – some will get a boost dose four weeks after the first dose (prime) and some will get a boost at twelve weeks.
Between 5 and 9 routine blood tests will be taken over the course of a year to look at the immune responses to the vaccine depending on the group you are in. You may also be asked for a nasal fluid sample at each visit. If you were to test positive for the virus causing COVID-19 we may ask you to attend for an extra visit.
Participants will need to complete an online diary for up to 28 days following each of the two vaccinations
The trial will take one year to complete per participant (from the time the first dose of vaccine is given)..
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1357295790012706816?s=20
The advantage of that is that it will be taking us less than a fortnight to vaccinate an age cohort. So every relaxation should see fewer cases if we're keeping R below 1 and fewer vulnerable unvaccinated people.
About 81% of hospitalisations are 50+ I think?
Children and teenagers account for just~2% of the total so it's probably not worth vaccinating them unless and until we are awash with the stuff that is approved for paediatric use!
I think that's right anyway, it's all amateur number crunching – it could be wrong, DYOR etc etc
Not sure what you want? Them to jab people who are already ill with Covid and who have refused consent?
Lessons will be learned. Recommendations at great length will be made to justify the above, (how could it be otherwise?) but no one will be found at fault.
And they will all be dead or long retired by then anyways.
Although my son is absolutely desperate to get back to school however, I think we might as well wait until Easter.
That grabs us a free fortnight, as the children are off anyway from Good Friday for the following two weeks...
If you want to leave the site, you can just leave it ... quietly. You won't be missed. No need to post, just go.
None of us would be missed, if we were to stop posting.
OTH, criticising Meeks is perfectly fine. He doles it out aplenty, so he can take it.
The thread header writers are not red squirrels. They are not an endangered species needing protection.
We're very sensitive to things that don't "fit in" to our perception of how something was/is. As I said, set Bridgerton somewhere fictional and it wouldn't have grated at all. I think I'd find it just as grating to have a US slavery drama in which all the slaves were white, but give me a fictional place with white slaves and black masters and I could go with that, no problem.
Perhaps the Tories need to send in the British Army to help?
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrIQhJN7htgeuYAYRB3Bwx.;_ylu=Y29sbwMEcG9zAzEEdnRpZANDMTQ2MV8xBHNlYwNwaXZz?p=candy+richard+burton&type=dhm_A0JQ1_set_bfr__alt__ddc_srch_searchpulse_net&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&ei=UTF-8&fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea#id=1&vid=cb965ce1227d6743eb4d90963faf0546&action=view
Off for an MRI on Saturday. Obviously still very nervous until I get results from that.
Everything has been done very quickly. Not quickly enough for me, but nevertheless quickly by any reasonable standards.
At least Rishi Sunak is starting to make the connections and ask the questions people who are able to think for themselves are asking.
Totally ignored on here of course!
So there are reasons why not every care home resident will be vaccinated and, because infection rates are higher in England, that will mean fewer will have been vaccinated, even if every possible vaccination has been given.
However, the government should have a figure for how many vaccinations of care home residents have been given and of how many care home residents there are, and so be able to provide the proportion of one of the other.
That it is unwilling to provide this number is not good.
The obfuscation is throwing up smokescreens like this to justify not using vaccine doses available.
EDIT: Oops sorry, I see you've just this minute posted an update on it!
If people are refusing vaccines they can't be vaccinated against their will - and quoting them then as not vaccinated is misleading if you're reporting progress in getting through the age groups.
Sounds familiar.
Hence the new moved goalposts of 'everybody over 50' today (pored over by the faithful and the gullible on here, soon to drop to the over 40s).
The government can turn then around and say too few have come forward, and so lockdown remains.
As I say luckily Sunak appears to be waking up to this. Then again he has seen the books. He has seen at least some the carnage these measures are causing (Reinforced by the BoE today). And in terms of the SAGE committee he is starting to smell the rat that some of us have been smelling for months.
This questioning will take place after the committee have had the chance to absorb Salmond's written statement which raises some rather awkward questions for Murrell. It should be an interesting week. Much will depend on how much of a restriction is put on the committee members this time.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1357292014849638401
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/1357290746458628096?s=20
We want these numbers for subgroups because we are vaccinating by subgroups. It doesn't have to do with whether the next groups on the list should be vaccinated.
If there are large numbers of people who have refused the vaccine we need to know that. If there are large numbers of care homes that remain to have vaccinations because of outbreaks we need to know that.
HMG should not be hiding these numbers.
https://twitter.com/Oldfirmfacts1/status/1357316522587357189?s=20
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/COVID-19-weekly-announced-vaccinations-28-January-2021.xlsx
The next weekly update is due today.
So, up till the 24th of January
Over 80s 79.7% (2,261,407) had received a 1st dose.
Overs 80s 11.6% (328,983) had received a 2nd dose
This was when the England total of all doses was 6,232,584
Does any other country tick ALL those boxes? Maybe Belgium? Which says something.
Given all that, I reckon we'd have been in the top five for death tolls - or thereabouts - whatever the government did. But yes, they also made grave mistakes, from the idiotic advice on masks, at the start, to the chaos of quarantine throughout. Possibly tens of thousands died who didn't need to.
Will it matter, in the long run? No. Because Mr Meeks does not, perhaps, quite understand human psychology in this instance.
People remember wars, but they forget plagues. Deliberately. This is because plagues are WORSE than wars, they have no heroic narrative, no memories of camaraderie, plagues are just horrible, grinding nightmares from which we yearn to escape, and never look back.
So the government will likely get away with its chaotic errors. Everyone will want to forget.
SeanT, ex of this parish, wrote on this theme early in the pandemic.
https://unherd.com/2020/05/why-we-remember-wars-but-forget-plagues/
Does the centre left SNP have a problem with Scottish Patriotism and Scottish flag? Look at the polls and work it out.
It isn't the government or the population. Respiratory disease always explodes in winter. Its like asking whether the government or the population is responsible for the increase in snow.
Is flag waving an issue like this in other countries? Do lefties in places like France have some meltdown about this? Is a genuine question. I honestly don't know the answer. It is considered even of note if a politician has a flag of their own country?
https://twitter.com/RaphaelHarris9/status/1355842974098354177
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/COVID-19-weekly-announced-vaccinations-28-January-2021.xlsx
There is a tab for "Vaccinations by Ethnicity"
Unlike the age numbers, there is no data given on the total number for the various ethnicities. So no percentage take-up given.
So we can say 79.712220528706% (lol) of the over 80s were vaccinated by the 24th Jan. But we can't say that for any ethnic group.....
Labour is an analogue party in a digital age.
If the French say they will vaccinate all over 70s who want a vaccine then later say all over 70s who want a vaccine have been vaccinated then yes I would expect that to be excluding antivaxxers who rejected the vaccine.
Unless you're going to compel people by force there will be an element who refuse.
I presume this is so that the data is impenetrable for thicko journalists. And they don't get racist headlines in the usual places.
Germany also has it (see the video of Merkel irritably grabbing and concealing a German flag) - but for very different reasons.
Not sure I've seen it anywhere else.
Actually, I have: Australia is getting quite a nasty case. See the campaign to move Australia Day.
Burgon never did that. And now he won;t get the chance. The tories have got there before him.
* And still a lot of racism (far worse than here). In that respect similar to US, with the wokeys and the racists.
As with most things, Burgon is wrong and Starmer right.
The head of the UK’s biggest chain of airport hotels has said his company has been “kept in the dark” over the government’s plans for hotel quarantine.
Boris Johnson announced last month that all arrivals from 33 high-risk countries would be required to go into quarantine for ten days to stop the importation of “vaccine-busting” strains of the coronavirus.
However, the government has yet to announce when the new policy will be implemented, with Whitehall sources suggesting it may not be in place until the week of February 15.
Rob Paterson, chief executive of the Best Western hotel group, said the government had yet to have any detailed conversations about the policy. He said that if he had announced a major programme without any details “I’m not sure I’d have a job”....
..Paterson told Today on BBC Radio 4 that Best Western is “yet to understand exactly what protocols are required of the hotels”.
He said: “I think in any normal company if you went out and announced a programme nationally and you hadn’t thought about how you were going to plan that, and you hadn’t spoken to the people involved . . . I’m not sure I’d have a job if I did that in my company.
“To this day we simply haven’t heard anything despite multiple offers. We’ve got all these contacts in other countries that have already rolled this out for some time. They could offer some really valuable support and we’re just simply kept in the dark.”
Paterson added that hoteliers “need some assurance” over demand levels, pricing and security measures.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/airport-hotel-giant-kept-in-the-dark-by-government-over-quarantine-policy-qwks9fm88
https://guernseypress.com/news/2021/02/04/two-ms-branches-closed-for-deep-clean-after-worker-tests-positive/
It remains a national competence and the EU started with no budget. Essentially it found itself volunteered by Germany, half way through the process, to co-ordinate a 27-way consortium where everything had to be agreed by all the participants and any money raised from them.
Which isn’t to say that the EU handled it well, but it was a difficult approach from the outset. Some countries like France, Italy and the Netherlands were keen to crack on and invest in development, like we were, but others around the periphery of Europe felt last summer that the worse was over, or that they had managed to dodge the worst of the virus.
In a parallel universe where the EU started with both the power and the budget to run a Europe-wide procurement programme, who is to say how things turned out.
What was actually done turned into the worst of both worlds.
Hey former red wall constituencies, you know that cuddly puppy of transformative change that we sold you?
Even keeping clamped at the start of December until a one day relax would have been useful.
Hindsight is great. (And I know that some have advocated this, and that but government is always about trade offs. Its possible that if those in charge were of a more pessimistic bent, then things would have been different).
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1357322968876126211?s=20
However, the same thinktank has failed to find any kind of solution. The idea you can magic this away with a few flags or "veterans at party rallies" (really?) is painfully simplistic. It will just look cringe.
What can Labour do? Dunno. Copy the SNP, somehow? The SNP's patriotism works because it has successfully otherised the English. The Scots are proud and plucky but oppressed, we must throw off the colonial yoke, all that bullshit. It is the patriotism of grievance, and the underdog.
Labour needs to find someone who is theoretically oppressing England, and then theatrically hate them. China?
But... Pro rata Portugal's death toll would be 80,000. Its health service is effectively collapsing, and running out oxygen.
Belgium's toll would be 120,000.
By hey Mr Meeks, you carry on with your shroud waving numbers and misrepresent the country and the govt.
Its a pandemic Mr Meeks. It does not stick to rules (a bit like reckless hedonistic youths). And its mutating. Go ahead and nitpick and second guess to fit your prejudice.
This govt has certainly not done any worse, except possibly by those countries who are happy to be subservient to rigid orders. And of course the EU fall down at the first hurdle.
And at the deep fundamental level our govt has led the world with a way to get out of this pandemic.
Not that you would guess from the usual nonsense from Mr Meeks. If you dont have anything worthwhile to say Mr Meeks just don't bother saying it.
It did feel rather like they were really trying to sound as far away from a sterotypical ozzie with questionable attitudes to the indigenous people.
He appears to have sympathy with the argument that getting the virus is akin to a first dose of vaccine and there may be merit in the suggestion that it be followed by a second dose after recovery.
Also worth noting, in relation to case homes, that they will have a fair few people who won’t be given the vaccine for various other medical reasons.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1357324514347147265?s=20
It's not just one side, tho: aboriginal Australians can be violent and aggressive towards white people, just for being white.
Given the tragic history, the latter is more understandable.
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1357160435745755136