On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
AOC would challenge Harris and Buttigieg if Biden did not run again in 2024 certainly
She is certainly the obvious one right now. And she has a huge and dedicated following, at least on social media. They're probably concentrated in the wrong places to really help her win the nomination. I doubt she'd make much headway in the Southern states that refused to vote for anyone but Biden this time around, and I cannot see the wider Democrat party being dumb enough to pick her.
No but AOC would pick up the torch of the Democratic left from Sanders.
If she won the nomination and Pence won the GOP nomination, Pence would arguably then be the moderate candidate against her.
AOC won't stand in 2024 - she would only just be 35.
If and when AOC stands it will be far later 2032 or 2036.
I agree. And I expect her to be President by one of those years - she's genuinely charismatic and appealing. And by 2032 or 2036, you can bet that she will have moderated some of what many perceive as her current excesses; she is very ambitious.
She is the US Corbyn, just a more telegenic one
AOC is NOT the US Corbyn! C'mon HYUFD.
She is, she is even more leftwing than Sanders.
At a minimum she is a charismatic Rebecca Long Bailey or a female Clive Lewis
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
Days to target 10 Yesterday's return 480,560 Required rate 402,895 (↓ from 409,956 yesterday)
I wonder if we are going to see the drop off in vaccinations on Sunday and particularly Monday as we have on previous weeks. If these lulls can be prevented with increased supply then they will smash the target (at least in total number of cases terms).
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
Interesting hence my question. Less so than someone asymptomatic?
Where were the studies - apart from the Oxford paper?
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
AOC would challenge Harris and Buttigieg if Biden did not run again in 2024 certainly
She is certainly the obvious one right now. And she has a huge and dedicated following, at least on social media. They're probably concentrated in the wrong places to really help her win the nomination. I doubt she'd make much headway in the Southern states that refused to vote for anyone but Biden this time around, and I cannot see the wider Democrat party being dumb enough to pick her.
No but AOC would pick up the torch of the Democratic left from Sanders.
If she won the nomination and Pence won the GOP nomination, Pence would arguably then be the moderate candidate against her.
AOC won't stand in 2024 - she would only just be 35.
If and when AOC stands it will be far later 2032 or 2036.
I agree. And I expect her to be President by one of those years - she's genuinely charismatic and appealing. And by 2032 or 2036, you can bet that she will have moderated some of what many perceive as her current excesses; she is very ambitious.
Super sharp and savvy. I have never heard her in a debate she doesn't win.
The subtle, nuanced political judgment of HYUFD has decided that she's the US Corbyn, so let there be an end to it.
Well he did move a bit under pressure tbf. Latest bid is a female Clive Lewis. Still slightly churlish, imo, although I do rate Clive Lewis. I might possibly have voted for him as leader or deputy if he'd made the short list.
"Britain outside the EU was able to operate as a “speedboat” in securing coronavirus vaccines, the European Commission president admitted today.
In an acknowledgement of Europe’s slow pace of vaccine rollout, Ursula von der Leyen said that operating on its own allowed the UK to move more nimbly to secure supplies."
I voted Remain and 5 years after Brexit finally I see the best argument yet for Leave! Go Ursula go!
It is a good story for Leave, but it really is the only one, which ensures Brexit apologists will harp on about it for years and years. It is a bit like when Scotland occasionally win (or even draw) at rugby or football, we all have to suffer their continuous crowing, but it doesn't change the fact that their team is actually crap.
Credit to you for recognising that it is a success. It's the first major post Brexit win but won't be the only one.
The simple fact is that being nimble works, being sclerotic does not.
This is a point I've made to you on many occasions in the past and you just couldn't see past a simpleminded mentality of "EU big. Big good. Big smash small. Goliath beat David. Hulk smash."
This won't be the last time post Brexit Britain can be more adept and agile than the EU.
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
Yes, but we need real world data on this. However, I think vaccine passports are part of a different discussion on social pressure to get vaccinated. We need to do it to make sure we get >98% take up to ensure there's no third wave.
Days to target 10 Yesterday's return 480,560 Required rate 402,895 (↓ from 409,956 yesterday)
I wonder if we are going to see the drop off in vaccinations on Sunday and particularly Monday as we have on previous weeks. If these lulls can be prevented with increased supply then they will smash the target (at least in total number of cases terms).
It's Monday and Tuesday that typically has the drop off isn't it?
Sunday normally has a smashing return. I expect the RRR will fall very significantly on Sunday which will be like hitting a few 6s in an over.
Days to target 10 Yesterday's return 480,560 Required rate 402,895 (↓ from 409,956 yesterday)
I wonder if we are going to see the drop off in vaccinations on Sunday and particularly Monday as we have on previous weeks. If these lulls can be prevented with increased supply then they will smash the target (at least in total number of cases terms).
Based on the weather forecast, the North, and in particular Scotland, will struggle for a few days.
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
Interesting hence my question. Less so than someone asymptomatic?
Where were the studies - apart from the Oxford paper?
About the same from what I can see, so it reduces the base R of the disease to somewhere near 1 in a target poor environment as people will have very high levels of neutralising antibodies and that causes a reduction in the R to around 0.
Just been having a phone discussion about the hows and wheres of WEA meetings for the Autumn. Last couple of terms they've been Zoom only; apparently we are now thinking back to Church and Village Halls and the like.
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
My wife had her Pride of England AZ shot earlier this week. She was quite ill for about a day but is now up and about catching up on her Dura Ace bollocking backlog.
I'm not liking all the "feel crook for 48 hours" reportage. Might not have it now. Big side benefit of that is I will accrue immense moral authority to argue for a global priority for the vaccine. People will have to sit up and listen.
Your jab won't be heading off to some 85 year old in Manaus that needs it, it'll go into the bin. And you'll have set back both the UK's and the world's herd immunity efforts.
Hang on a sec. I'm only one person so it will be a tiny near zero impact on the big picture. This set against a really quite considerable accrual of gravitas and a slam dunk rebuttal to people saying to me "You get yourself sorted and then seek to deny other Brits. You utterly repulsive hypocrite!"
That's the trade off here.
It's true. I mean, we'll still be able to judge you entirely wrong, shun you for refusing to assist the collective immunity of your fellow citizens, and gently rib you for your self-inflicted martyrdom, but we won't be able to call you a hypocrite.
That'll be a big win for you
That's fine. It's the hypocrite badge I seek to bin. Free of that, I'm confident I can win the argument from both the ethics and pragmatism angle.
Even better, I might have the jab but under duress from you guys. That places me beyond reproach and in an impeccable position.
Although anyone who isn't a loonytune Novara Media fanatic knows the pragmatic thing to do is finish vaccinating the whole of the UK, remove our restrictions and be able to better fund more vaccines by the end of the year for the rest of the world.
Your plan would mean less support for the rest of the world. Why would you do that?
Don't have a plan. My argument is pure theory at the moment. Right now, no dispute, it's full steam ahead on the Brit jabbing front. Said all this before. Fact, I'm going to channel some Aled Brewerton of Handforth Parish Council - read my posts, Philip, READ THEM AND UNDERSTAND THEM!
Days to target 10 Yesterday's return 480,560 Required rate 402,895 (↓ from 409,956 yesterday)
I wonder if we are going to see the drop off in vaccinations on Sunday and particularly Monday as we have on previous weeks. If these lulls can be prevented with increased supply then they will smash the target (at least in total number of cases terms).
It's Monday and Tuesday that typically has the drop off isn't it?
Sunday normally has a smashing return. I expect the RRR will fall very significantly on Sunday which will be like hitting a few 6s in an over.
Sorry, I was referring to the date of vaccination and not the reporting date. The number reported on Sunday (vaccinations on Saturday) has always been the big one. It has always been disappointing to see the drop on the following day. They have got a lot of things right but if they can fix that then the numbers will skyrocket.
"Britain outside the EU was able to operate as a “speedboat” in securing coronavirus vaccines, the European Commission president admitted today.
In an acknowledgement of Europe’s slow pace of vaccine rollout, Ursula von der Leyen said that operating on its own allowed the UK to move more nimbly to secure supplies."
I voted Remain and 5 years after Brexit finally I see the best argument yet for Leave! Go Ursula go!
It is a good story for Leave, but it really is the only one, which ensures Brexit apologists will harp on about it for years and years. It is a bit like when Scotland occasionally win (or even draw) at rugby or football, we all have to suffer their continuous crowing, but it doesn't change the fact that their team is actually crap.
Credit to you for recognising that it is a success. It's the first major post Brexit win but won't be the only one.
The simple fact is that being nimble works, being sclerotic does not.
This is a point I've made to you on many occasions in the past and you just couldn't see past a simpleminded mentality of "EU big. Big good. Big smash small. Goliath beat David. Hulk smash."
This won't be the last time post Brexit Britain can be more adept and agile than the EU.
Of course it won't, to believe otherwise would be as simplistic as those folk that blindly believe in Brexit. I am sure that sometimes Albania (whom we have just done a trade deal with "hurrah!") will be more "agile" than the UK. There will be advantages to Brexit ( I am trying to find some right now!) but they will be in totality outweighed by disadvantages overall. That is simple economics. How big these disadvantages are in the long run are will be down to those that run businesses who will try to compensate for the numpties that persuaded people Brexit was a good idea.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
AOC would challenge Harris and Buttigieg if Biden did not run again in 2024 certainly
She is certainly the obvious one right now. And she has a huge and dedicated following, at least on social media. They're probably concentrated in the wrong places to really help her win the nomination. I doubt she'd make much headway in the Southern states that refused to vote for anyone but Biden this time around, and I cannot see the wider Democrat party being dumb enough to pick her.
No but AOC would pick up the torch of the Democratic left from Sanders.
If she won the nomination and Pence won the GOP nomination, Pence would arguably then be the moderate candidate against her.
AOC won't stand in 2024 - she would only just be 35.
If and when AOC stands it will be far later 2032 or 2036.
I agree. And I expect her to be President by one of those years - she's genuinely charismatic and appealing. And by 2032 or 2036, you can bet that she will have moderated some of what many perceive as her current excesses; she is very ambitious.
She is the US Corbyn, just a more telegenic one
AOC is NOT the US Corbyn! C'mon HYUFD.
She is to the right of the UK government on healthcare....
She wants a 70% top rate of tax, she wants to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan, she also wants a UK style NHS for the US so you are wrong on that.
She is well to the left not only of Boris but Starmer too
She wants the Medicare For All option - Aka Berniecare - which is publicly funded and privately provided healthcare.
It is fully state funded, taxpayer financed healthcare. There are plenty of private providers doing NHS funded work now and the UK government wants to move further in that direction.
AOC after a few years of her 70% income tax would ram through state control and provision of hospitals too
“The U.K. government wants to move further in that direction”? That’s not your Government’s policy. I’d check those GE19 talking points if I were you, because you secured a lot of votes off the back of it not being your policy.
There is a P3 trial underway but the current one is a mess with a 3:1 ratio of vaccine:control and nowhere near enough over 55s in the trial.
The AZ trial was too, especially the UK one because of the stupid dosing error and unplanned variable gaps between doses, however the overall trial was still good enough to get approval. We'll see if the Russian one is when they apply for approval with the EMA and MHRA later this year, both are competent.
Days to target 10 Yesterday's return 480,560 Required rate 402,895 (↓ from 409,956 yesterday)
I wonder if we are going to see the drop off in vaccinations on Sunday and particularly Monday as we have on previous weeks. If these lulls can be prevented with increased supply then they will smash the target (at least in total number of cases terms).
It's Monday and Tuesday that typically has the drop off isn't it?
Sunday normally has a smashing return. I expect the RRR will fall very significantly on Sunday which will be like hitting a few 6s in an over.
Sorry, I was referring to the date of vaccination and not the reporting date. The number reported on Sunday (vaccinations on Saturday) has always been the big one. It has always been disappointing to see the drop on the following day. They have got a lot of things right but if they can fix that then the numbers will skyrocket.
I think you are assuming more than is warranted about these numbers - they are by reporting date.
Given that cases and other numbers come in over a period of days, it wouldn't be strange if a "reporting day" for vaccinations represents vaccinations spread over several days.
Unquestionably Britain has done well in vaccination; it hasn't done well in overall cases though. The Northern Irish situation doesn't strike me as demonstrating 'nimble footwork".
Equally unquestionably there are lessons to be learned by the EU, and one of themnI suggest is to get rid of UvdL a bit smartish. In other words to have a more responsive Administration, more answerable to the elected representatives.
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
My wife had her Pride of England AZ shot earlier this week. She was quite ill for about a day but is now up and about catching up on her Dura Ace bollocking backlog.
I'm not liking all the "feel crook for 48 hours" reportage. Might not have it now. Big side benefit of that is I will accrue immense moral authority to argue for a global priority for the vaccine. People will have to sit up and listen.
A real problem for your "global priority" crusade: what do you say if, as an example, China decides that rather than vaccinate the Uighurs it'll buy a couple more small African countries not already in its portfolio with the vaccines instead? Easy for me: I say there's a moral imperative to look after your own before you look after others. What do you say, that doesn't license countries less nice than us to leave their own poor and disadvantaged without state protection?
It's clever, Ishmael, but I escape thus. The need to channel vaccines to where the Covid need is greatest there bumps up against the need to keep racial (or religious) discrimination entirely out of it. And the latter prevails.
Leaving the ball entirely in the Chineses court to determine where the need (on medical grounds only, honest!) is greater.
Appalling what seems to be happening there. But assuming ivory tower pure theory territory, my argument is that for maximum anti-Covid efficiency AND ethics the vaccination would be driven by relative needs at the global level. Of course in the real world, money and politics and national capabilities and priorities are in the box seat. It will be interesting how the factors play out and a balance is struck as the rollout proceeds throughout this year and beyond.
If I ruled the world, the global effort would be targeted, not nobody above 20% before everyone at 20%. We'd target countries/regions where new mutations are known to be arising - Brazil and South Africa - and aim to get beyond herd immunity there asap. And then move on to the next worst hotspot, and so on.
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
My wife had her Pride of England AZ shot earlier this week. She was quite ill for about a day but is now up and about catching up on her Dura Ace bollocking backlog.
I'm not liking all the "feel crook for 48 hours" reportage. Might not have it now. Big side benefit of that is I will accrue immense moral authority to argue for a global priority for the vaccine. People will have to sit up and listen.
A real problem for your "global priority" crusade: what do you say if, as an example, China decides that rather than vaccinate the Uighurs it'll buy a couple more small African countries not already in its portfolio with the vaccines instead? Easy for me: I say there's a moral imperative to look after your own before you look after others. What do you say, that doesn't license countries less nice than us to leave their own poor and disadvantaged without state protection?
It's clever, Ishmael, but I escape thus. The need to channel vaccines to where the Covid need is greatest there bumps up against the need to keep racial (or religious) discrimination entirely out of it. And the latter prevails.
Leaving the ball entirely in the Chineses court to determine where the need (on medical grounds only, honest!) is greater.
Appalling what seems to be happening there. But assuming ivory tower pure theory territory, my argument is that for maximum anti-Covid efficiency AND ethics the vaccination would be driven by relative needs at the global level. Of course in the real world, money and politics and national capabilities and priorities are in the box seat. It will be interesting how the factors play out and a balance is struck as the rollout proceeds throughout this year and beyond.
But you're wrong and have been demonstrated to be wrong. Your logic is the EUs logic. We'll sort it out together according to need together. So nobody gets vaccinated.
The UK has the right attitude. We will sort ourselves out and once done have the capacity and capabilities to help others in volume.
Global quantity delivered matters far more than prioritising global need.
Yes, and we've just struck another manufacturing deal with CureVac that adds to UK (and global) capacity to beat this thing.
Kinabalu is looking at this from a lefty point of view of everyone deserving a proportional slice of the same pie, we're looking at it from a right wing perspective of having a larger pie so that everyone benefits. UK efforts have seen us go from having almost no manufacturing capacity for vaccines to having at least 600m with deals still in the pipeline to increase that to 1bn. That benefits us and the whole world, given our level of commitment it is only right that UK taxpayers benefit first from UK taxpayer subsidies.
It also fits in the right wing 'agency' vs left wing 'entitlement' perspectives.
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
Interesting hence my question. Less so than someone asymptomatic?
Where were the studies - apart from the Oxford paper?
About the same from what I can see, so it reduces the base R of the disease to somewhere near 1 in a target poor environment as people will have very high levels of neutralising antibodies and that causes a reduction in the R to around 0.
Thanks.
As I said I am interested in the popular (ie non-PB) narrative of what the "vaccine passports" are supposed to achieve.
We shall have to see how they are come to be seen and used by govt, business and the media.
I agree with the EU as far as their stance on this letter is concerned - it seems the letter has really been set up to 'fail' and provoke conflict with the EU. Why, I don't know.
"Britain outside the EU was able to operate as a “speedboat” in securing coronavirus vaccines, the European Commission president admitted today.
In an acknowledgement of Europe’s slow pace of vaccine rollout, Ursula von der Leyen said that operating on its own allowed the UK to move more nimbly to secure supplies."
I voted Remain and 5 years after Brexit finally I see the best argument yet for Leave! Go Ursula go!
It is a good story for Leave, but it really is the only one, which ensures Brexit apologists will harp on about it for years and years. It is a bit like when Scotland occasionally win (or even draw) at rugby or football, we all have to suffer their continuous crowing, but it doesn't change the fact that their team is actually crap.
Credit to you for recognising that it is a success. It's the first major post Brexit win but won't be the only one.
The simple fact is that being nimble works, being sclerotic does not.
This is a point I've made to you on many occasions in the past and you just couldn't see past a simpleminded mentality of "EU big. Big good. Big smash small. Goliath beat David. Hulk smash."
This won't be the last time post Brexit Britain can be more adept and agile than the EU.
Of course it won't, to believe otherwise would be as simplistic as those folk that blindly believe in Brexit. I am sure that sometimes Albania (whom we have just done a trade deal with "hurrah!") will be more "agile" than the UK. There will be advantages to Brexit ( I am trying to find some right now!) but they will be in totality outweighed by disadvantages overall. That is simple economics. How big these disadvantages are in the long run are will be down to those that run businesses who will try to compensate for the numpties that persuaded people Brexit was a good idea.
Difference between tactics and strategy. If you're small and nimble, you can get tactical wins, maybe quite frequently. But over time, strategy and size tend to win out. In the same way that some pirates get ahead of the game for a while, but navies win in the end.
I agree with the EU as far as their stance on this letter is concerned - it seems the letter has really been set up to 'fail' and provoke conflict with the EU. Why, I don't know.
Because Michael Gove desperately wants to have something where he looks good, on the front page of the Mail.
This is quite impressive. Seems a long time ago the government was working towards a 100K tests/day target.
After what many thought was a slow start, the U.K. testing rate has improved enormously over time. Here’s the Worldometers data, ordered by tests/capita, where the U.K. is now at 1.12, 15th in the global league table with only UAE, Denmark, Israel, Bahrain and a bunch of microstates ahead.
Joanna Cherry has launched a spectacular attack on Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership of the SNP, accusing the party of “Stalinist revisionism” after she was sacked from the Westminster frontbench.
In her first public intervention since being dismissed as justice and home affairs spokeswoman, Cherry compared her omission from the SNP press release detailing the reshuffle to a Soviet-era wiping from history.
She also invited comparisons with Alex Salmond’s accusation in 2019 that Nicola Sturgeon had been “rewriting history” after his pivotal role in the rise of the SNP was removed from the party website.
“I got 30 minutes’ notice of the announcement, no proper explanation of why I was being sacked and no acknowledgement of or any thanks at all for the work I have done in that role over the last five-and-a-half years,” Cherry wrote in The National.
“Indeed, the press release announcing the reshuffle was a masterly piece of Stalinist revisionism in which I was not even mentioned. Airbrushed from history. A non-person. Sounds familiar?”
Cherry claimed to have been unaware of an 11-point plan unveiled as a “plan B” for forcing a second independence referendum until she read it in the media, adding “there is no functioning link between MPs and the leadership”.
It is understood that it has been about five years since Cherry and Sturgeon had a “proper conversation” despite the Edinburgh South West MP having led the legal case against the prorogation of the UK parliament during that time.
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
My wife had her Pride of England AZ shot earlier this week. She was quite ill for about a day but is now up and about catching up on her Dura Ace bollocking backlog.
I'm not liking all the "feel crook for 48 hours" reportage. Might not have it now. Big side benefit of that is I will accrue immense moral authority to argue for a global priority for the vaccine. People will have to sit up and listen.
A real problem for your "global priority" crusade: what do you say if, as an example, China decides that rather than vaccinate the Uighurs it'll buy a couple more small African countries not already in its portfolio with the vaccines instead? Easy for me: I say there's a moral imperative to look after your own before you look after others. What do you say, that doesn't license countries less nice than us to leave their own poor and disadvantaged without state protection?
It's clever, Ishmael, but I escape thus. The need to channel vaccines to where the Covid need is greatest there bumps up against the need to keep racial (or religious) discrimination entirely out of it. And the latter prevails.
Leaving the ball entirely in the Chineses court to determine where the need (on medical grounds only, honest!) is greater.
Appalling what seems to be happening there. But assuming ivory tower pure theory territory, my argument is that for maximum anti-Covid efficiency AND ethics the vaccination would be driven by relative needs at the global level. Of course in the real world, money and politics and national capabilities and priorities are in the box seat. It will be interesting how the factors play out and a balance is struck as the rollout proceeds throughout this year and beyond.
If I ruled the world, the global effort would be targeted, not nobody above 20% before everyone at 20%. We'd target countries/regions where new mutations are known to be arising - Brazil and South Africa - and aim to get beyond herd immunity there asap. And then move on to the next worst hotspot, and so on.
Exactly.
The problem is that such a righteous approach would almost certainly result in unintended consequences. One of the advantages in letting, say, the UK or Israel blaze a trail and get all its population vaccinated is that it will then create a demand that far from starving the rest of the world of supply will most likely cause a race which will result in greater and enhanced manufacturing capability causing surplus. Self interest often produces much faster response overall than massive state bureaucracies where the man in the international bowler hat knows best, particularly in matters such as pharmaceuticals.
On a related note, I wonder whether Corbyn and those of his persuasion will be refusing the jab on moral grounds that he does not want to endorse the global pharma industry?
Days to target 10 Yesterday's return 480,560 Required rate 402,895 (↓ from 409,956 yesterday)
I wonder if we are going to see the drop off in vaccinations on Sunday and particularly Monday as we have on previous weeks. If these lulls can be prevented with increased supply then they will smash the target (at least in total number of cases terms).
It's Monday and Tuesday that typically has the drop off isn't it?
Sunday normally has a smashing return. I expect the RRR will fall very significantly on Sunday which will be like hitting a few 6s in an over.
Yes, hoping for some champagne cricket over the weekend!
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
And not particularly ill - COVID has got into a Guernsey Care home - vaccinated 3 weeks ago - only 2 out of 11 residents infected and the infected have mild symptoms. They've decamped the whole lot to the hospital, appropriately segregated.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
AOC would challenge Harris and Buttigieg if Biden did not run again in 2024 certainly
She is certainly the obvious one right now. And she has a huge and dedicated following, at least on social media. They're probably concentrated in the wrong places to really help her win the nomination. I doubt she'd make much headway in the Southern states that refused to vote for anyone but Biden this time around, and I cannot see the wider Democrat party being dumb enough to pick her.
No but AOC would pick up the torch of the Democratic left from Sanders.
If she won the nomination and Pence won the GOP nomination, Pence would arguably then be the moderate candidate against her.
AOC won't stand in 2024 - she would only just be 35.
If and when AOC stands it will be far later 2032 or 2036.
I agree. And I expect her to be President by one of those years - she's genuinely charismatic and appealing. And by 2032 or 2036, you can bet that she will have moderated some of what many perceive as her current excesses; she is very ambitious.
She is the US Corbyn, just a more telegenic one
AOC is NOT the US Corbyn! C'mon HYUFD.
It's hard to see how she might be given that Corbyn's politics are forever stuck in the 1970s. But I think it's probably fair to say that HYUFD doesn't understand US politics very well.
I'd say we do not have a 'UK AOC' - but I hope one is bubbling under.
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
My wife had her Pride of England AZ shot earlier this week. She was quite ill for about a day but is now up and about catching up on her Dura Ace bollocking backlog.
I'm not liking all the "feel crook for 48 hours" reportage. Might not have it now. Big side benefit of that is I will accrue immense moral authority to argue for a global priority for the vaccine. People will have to sit up and listen.
A real problem for your "global priority" crusade: what do you say if, as an example, China decides that rather than vaccinate the Uighurs it'll buy a couple more small African countries not already in its portfolio with the vaccines instead? Easy for me: I say there's a moral imperative to look after your own before you look after others. What do you say, that doesn't license countries less nice than us to leave their own poor and disadvantaged without state protection?
It's clever, Ishmael, but I escape thus. The need to channel vaccines to where the Covid need is greatest there bumps up against the need to keep racial (or religious) discrimination entirely out of it. And the latter prevails.
Leaving the ball entirely in the Chineses court to determine where the need (on medical grounds only, honest!) is greater.
Appalling what seems to be happening there. But assuming ivory tower pure theory territory, my argument is that for maximum anti-Covid efficiency AND ethics the vaccination would be driven by relative needs at the global level. Of course in the real world, money and politics and national capabilities and priorities are in the box seat. It will be interesting how the factors play out and a balance is struck as the rollout proceeds throughout this year and beyond.
If I ruled the world, the global effort would be targeted, not nobody above 20% before everyone at 20%. We'd target countries/regions where new mutations are known to be arising - Brazil and South Africa - and aim to get beyond herd immunity there asap. And then move on to the next worst hotspot, and so on.
Exactly.
The problem is that such a righteous approach would almost certainly result in unintended consequences. One of the advantages in letting, say, the UK or Israel blaze a trail and get all its population vaccinated is that it will then create a demand that far from starving the rest of the world of supply will most likely cause a race which will result in greater and enhanced manufacturing capability causing surplus. Self interest often produces much faster response overall than massive state bureaucracies where the man in the international bowler hat knows best, particularly in matters such as pharmaceuticals.
On a related note, I wonder whether Corbyn and those of his persuasion will be refusing the jab on moral grounds that he does not want to endorse the global pharma industry?
It's the same lefty crap about everyone getting a fair slice of the pie. They seem to never understand supply side solutions are the answer.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
AOC would challenge Harris and Buttigieg if Biden did not run again in 2024 certainly
She is certainly the obvious one right now. And she has a huge and dedicated following, at least on social media. They're probably concentrated in the wrong places to really help her win the nomination. I doubt she'd make much headway in the Southern states that refused to vote for anyone but Biden this time around, and I cannot see the wider Democrat party being dumb enough to pick her.
No but AOC would pick up the torch of the Democratic left from Sanders.
If she won the nomination and Pence won the GOP nomination, Pence would arguably then be the moderate candidate against her.
AOC won't stand in 2024 - she would only just be 35.
If and when AOC stands it will be far later 2032 or 2036.
I agree. And I expect her to be President by one of those years - she's genuinely charismatic and appealing. And by 2032 or 2036, you can bet that she will have moderated some of what many perceive as her current excesses; she is very ambitious.
She is the US Corbyn, just a more telegenic one
AOC is NOT the US Corbyn! C'mon HYUFD.
It's hard to see how she might be given that Corbyn's politics are forever stuck in the 1970s. But I think it's probably fair to say that HYUFD doesn't understand US politics very well.
I'd say we do not have a 'UK AOC' - but I hope one is bubbling under.
"Britain outside the EU was able to operate as a “speedboat” in securing coronavirus vaccines, the European Commission president admitted today.
In an acknowledgement of Europe’s slow pace of vaccine rollout, Ursula von der Leyen said that operating on its own allowed the UK to move more nimbly to secure supplies."
I voted Remain and 5 years after Brexit finally I see the best argument yet for Leave! Go Ursula go!
It is a good story for Leave, but it really is the only one, which ensures Brexit apologists will harp on about it for years and years. It is a bit like when Scotland occasionally win (or even draw) at rugby or football, we all have to suffer their continuous crowing, but it doesn't change the fact that their team is actually crap.
That's my sense of it too. It was described on here a few days ago by a poster as Stockport County Syndrome and I rather liked that.
I agree with the EU as far as their stance on this letter is concerned - it seems the letter has really been set up to 'fail' and provoke conflict with the EU. Why, I don't know.
Because Michael Gove desperately wants to have something where he looks good, on the front page of the Mail.
I doubt it's just for a headline. I think they're planning to activate the protocol, and the EU have given them diplomatic cover to do it. The tone of the letter is off though - I don't see the point of these parlour game antics. Be open handed and ask for what you really want, in the way you feel is most likely to succeed.
Opened up my first Stocks and Shares ISA today with a high-risk equities only index fund. Onwards and upwards to stock market domination I think.
Which fund-manager did you choose?
I have just gone through my bank to start with for convenience as the small amount I have invested currently means the fees are miniscule.
I believe the fund is managed by Coutts & Co.
Miniscule really adds up with compounding - it's not as if equities return *that* much compared to, oooh, political gambling
Get cheapest (vanguard, blackrock, etc) and consider all expenses.
I tend to agree: unless you're willing to actively manage your account, you're probably best just getting a global (MSCI World) tracker with low fees.
Of course, if you plan to bugger around in GME, then you should open an account with Interactive Brokers and then prepare to have a *very* exciting time.
I agree with the EU as far as their stance on this letter is concerned - it seems the letter has really been set up to 'fail' and provoke conflict with the EU. Why, I don't know.
Maybe Gove is on manoeuvres. He must look at Johnson and think "why is this hopeless bumbling numpty my boss?". I personally find Gove repulsive, but unlike Johnson he does have some track record in being an effective minister
Is it (Sputnik 5) actually approved? Or did a couple of Europeans just say nice things about it?
I'd also note that the Russians are currently running at about the same pace as Romania (in terms of *absolute* doses given, so it's far from clear they have meaningful quantities available for export.
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
I thought the subject matter experts were very confident - albeit perhaps not 100% sure - that having the vaccine not only reduces your chances of getting sick IF you're infected but also reduces your chances of getting infected at all.
I agree with the EU as far as their stance on this letter is concerned - it seems the letter has really been set up to 'fail' and provoke conflict with the EU. Why, I don't know.
Maybe Gove is on manoeuvres. He must look at Johnson and think "why is this hopeless bumbling numpty my boss?". I personally find Gove repulsive, but unlike Johnson he does have some track record in being an effective minister
Mrs Gove has told Mr Gove that he messed up his big chance. The undoubted fact that Mrs Gove buggered up Mr Gove's chances won't be featuring in their conversations.
Joanna Cherry has launched a spectacular attack on Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership of the SNP, accusing the party of “Stalinist revisionism” after she was sacked from the Westminster frontbench.
In her first public intervention since being dismissed as justice and home affairs spokeswoman, Cherry compared her omission from the SNP press release detailing the reshuffle to a Soviet-era wiping from history.
She also invited comparisons with Alex Salmond’s accusation in 2019 that Nicola Sturgeon had been “rewriting history” after his pivotal role in the rise of the SNP was removed from the party website.
“I got 30 minutes’ notice of the announcement, no proper explanation of why I was being sacked and no acknowledgement of or any thanks at all for the work I have done in that role over the last five-and-a-half years,” Cherry wrote in The National.
“Indeed, the press release announcing the reshuffle was a masterly piece of Stalinist revisionism in which I was not even mentioned. Airbrushed from history. A non-person. Sounds familiar?”
Cherry claimed to have been unaware of an 11-point plan unveiled as a “plan B” for forcing a second independence referendum until she read it in the media, adding “there is no functioning link between MPs and the leadership”.
It is understood that it has been about five years since Cherry and Sturgeon had a “proper conversation” despite the Edinburgh South West MP having led the legal case against the prorogation of the UK parliament during that time.
Personally I thought Nicola Sturgeon was more of a Nikita Khrushchev.
You know you are responding like a grown up when you start referring to a factional political squabble with reference to mass murdering dictators. She's obviously taking things well.
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
Interesting hence my question. Less so than someone asymptomatic?
Where were the studies - apart from the Oxford paper?
About the same from what I can see, so it reduces the base R of the disease to somewhere near 1 in a target poor environment as people will have very high levels of neutralising antibodies and that causes a reduction in the R to around 0.
Thanks.
As I said I am interested in the popular (ie non-PB) narrative of what the "vaccine passports" are supposed to achieve.
We shall have to see how they are come to be seen and used by govt, business and the media.
I think they should be regarded about the same as MOT certificates; having one proves very little, but is still streets ahead of not having one.
Is it (Sputnik 5) actually approved? Or did a couple of Europeans just say nice things about it?
I'd also note that the Russians are currently running at about the same pace as Romania (in terms of *absolute* doses given, so it's far from clear they have meaningful quantities available for export.
UAE have approved it, after a small local trial here. Not heard of it being available in the wild yet though.
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
My wife had her Pride of England AZ shot earlier this week. She was quite ill for about a day but is now up and about catching up on her Dura Ace bollocking backlog.
I'm not liking all the "feel crook for 48 hours" reportage. Might not have it now. Big side benefit of that is I will accrue immense moral authority to argue for a global priority for the vaccine. People will have to sit up and listen.
A real problem for your "global priority" crusade: what do you say if, as an example, China decides that rather than vaccinate the Uighurs it'll buy a couple more small African countries not already in its portfolio with the vaccines instead? Easy for me: I say there's a moral imperative to look after your own before you look after others. What do you say, that doesn't license countries less nice than us to leave their own poor and disadvantaged without state protection?
It's clever, Ishmael, but I escape thus. The need to channel vaccines to where the Covid need is greatest there bumps up against the need to keep racial (or religious) discrimination entirely out of it. And the latter prevails.
Leaving the ball entirely in the Chineses court to determine where the need (on medical grounds only, honest!) is greater.
Appalling what seems to be happening there. But assuming ivory tower pure theory territory, my argument is that for maximum anti-Covid efficiency AND ethics the vaccination would be driven by relative needs at the global level. Of course in the real world, money and politics and national capabilities and priorities are in the box seat. It will be interesting how the factors play out and a balance is struck as the rollout proceeds throughout this year and beyond.
If I ruled the world, the global effort would be targeted, not nobody above 20% before everyone at 20%. We'd target countries/regions where new mutations are known to be arising - Brazil and South Africa - and aim to get beyond herd immunity there asap. And then move on to the next worst hotspot, and so on.
Exactly.
The problem is that such a righteous approach would almost certainly result in unintended consequences. One of the advantages in letting, say, the UK or Israel blaze a trail and get all its population vaccinated is that it will then create a demand that far from starving the rest of the world of supply will most likely cause a race which will result in greater and enhanced manufacturing capability causing surplus. Self interest often produces much faster response overall than massive state bureaucracies where the man in the international bowler hat knows best, particularly in matters such as pharmaceuticals.
On a related note, I wonder whether Corbyn and those of his persuasion will be refusing the jab on moral grounds that he does not want to endorse the global pharma industry?
It's the same lefty crap about everyone getting a fair slice of the pie. They seem to never understand supply side solutions are the answer.
Countries paying up for vaccines results in more production, results in everyone getting vaccinated sooner. The EU should actually be thanking us for blazing the way and making sure that firms invested in lots of production capacity.
(As an aside: Pfizer is a firm with $40bn of sales per year. They have announced their new target is 2 billion doses of their vaccine this year. At $30/time, that is $80bn of additional sales. CV19 vaccines are going to account for an insane proportion of pharmaceuticals spend this year.)
I agree with the EU as far as their stance on this letter is concerned - it seems the letter has really been set up to 'fail' and provoke conflict with the EU. Why, I don't know.
Gove doesn't have any other ideas so is returning to Brexit greatest hits? Same reason the EU started this mess in the first place.
They seem to trust the bot more than the intern in marketing or customer service who usuallly does this sort of job.
For certain types of query a bot will beat a person any day. For example, if someone is asking about flight times, terminals, gates, baggage allowances, for those sort of things the bot is best. It would be nuts to have a person responding to such queries when a bot is going to be near perfect and very fast to respond. Of course you have to have to be able to deal with the 1 in 10 queries that doesn't fit a pigeon hole, and you had better have someone who really knows what's what for the 1 in a million when getting it wrong could spell real trouble.
Just have to feel for the plebs that don't have their own dedicated customer support line.
I assumed everyone had a dedicated customer support line 😇
Is it (Sputnik 5) actually approved? Or did a couple of Europeans just say nice things about it?
I'd also note that the Russians are currently running at about the same pace as Romania (in terms of *absolute* doses given, so it's far from clear they have meaningful quantities available for export.
UAE have approved it, after a small local trial here. Not heard of it being available in the wild yet though.
We're always being told how hard up everyone is because of the lockdown.
Well of course many people have been very badly affected - but on the other hand an awful lot of people are miles better off.
In total the British public has saved - ie banked - an additional £150bn.
There are approx 25m households - so that's £6,000 per household on average.
So for every household which has saved nothing, another has banked £12,000.
And people wonder why the Conservatives win elections - well forget everything to do with policies - before you start there's a big pool of people with piles of cash and they know which Party is least likely to be going after it (!)
They seem to trust the bot more than the intern in marketing or customer service who usuallly does this sort of job.
For certain types of query a bot will beat a person any day. For example, if someone is asking about flight times, terminals, gates, baggage allowances, for those sort of things the bot is best. It would be nuts to have a person responding to such queries when a bot is going to be near perfect and very fast to respond. Of course you have to have to be able to deal with the 1 in 10 queries that doesn't fit a pigeon hole, and you had better have someone who really knows what's what for the 1 in a million when getting it wrong could spell real trouble.
Just have to feel for the plebs that don't have their own dedicated customer support line.
I assumed everyone had a dedicated customer support line 😇
My brother in law is very impressed with your bank's voice recognition abilities.
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
I thought the subject matter experts were very confident - albeit perhaps not 100% sure - that having the vaccine not only reduces your chances of getting sick IF you're infected but also reduces your chances of getting infected at all.
Is this not right?
They are very confident. The questions are:
(1) Of the people who do not become symptomatic carriers of CV19, how many are unsymptomatic? and (2) How contagious are these people?
We don't really know the answer to either definitively, but we do know that those people who were symptomatically sick with CV19 after being vaccinated demonstrated very low levels of viral shedding, so that it is a very good reason to be confident that the vaccinated population will not be major spreaders of the disease.
Joanna Cherry has launched a spectacular attack on Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership of the SNP, accusing the party of “Stalinist revisionism” after she was sacked from the Westminster frontbench.
In her first public intervention since being dismissed as justice and home affairs spokeswoman, Cherry compared her omission from the SNP press release detailing the reshuffle to a Soviet-era wiping from history.
She also invited comparisons with Alex Salmond’s accusation in 2019 that Nicola Sturgeon had been “rewriting history” after his pivotal role in the rise of the SNP was removed from the party website.
“I got 30 minutes’ notice of the announcement, no proper explanation of why I was being sacked and no acknowledgement of or any thanks at all for the work I have done in that role over the last five-and-a-half years,” Cherry wrote in The National.
“Indeed, the press release announcing the reshuffle was a masterly piece of Stalinist revisionism in which I was not even mentioned. Airbrushed from history. A non-person. Sounds familiar?”
Cherry claimed to have been unaware of an 11-point plan unveiled as a “plan B” for forcing a second independence referendum until she read it in the media, adding “there is no functioning link between MPs and the leadership”.
It is understood that it has been about five years since Cherry and Sturgeon had a “proper conversation” despite the Edinburgh South West MP having led the legal case against the prorogation of the UK parliament during that time.
Personally I thought Nicola Sturgeon was more of a Nikita Khrushchev.
You know you are responding like a grown up when you start referring to a factional political squabble with reference to mass murdering dictators. She's obviously taking things well.
Perhaps there should be the equivalent of a Godwin's Law for Communism/The Soviet Union?
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
AOC would challenge Harris and Buttigieg if Biden did not run again in 2024 certainly
She is certainly the obvious one right now. And she has a huge and dedicated following, at least on social media. They're probably concentrated in the wrong places to really help her win the nomination. I doubt she'd make much headway in the Southern states that refused to vote for anyone but Biden this time around, and I cannot see the wider Democrat party being dumb enough to pick her.
No but AOC would pick up the torch of the Democratic left from Sanders.
If she won the nomination and Pence won the GOP nomination, Pence would arguably then be the moderate candidate against her.
AOC won't stand in 2024 - she would only just be 35.
If and when AOC stands it will be far later 2032 or 2036.
I agree. And I expect her to be President by one of those years - she's genuinely charismatic and appealing. And by 2032 or 2036, you can bet that she will have moderated some of what many perceive as her current excesses; she is very ambitious.
She is the US Corbyn, just a more telegenic one
AOC is NOT the US Corbyn! C'mon HYUFD.
It's hard to see how she might be given that Corbyn's politics are forever stuck in the 1970s. But I think it's probably fair to say that HYUFD doesn't understand US politics very well.
I'd say we do not have a 'UK AOC' - but I hope one is bubbling under.
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
I thought the subject matter experts were very confident - albeit perhaps not 100% sure - that having the vaccine not only reduces your chances of getting sick IF you're infected but also reduces your chances of getting infected at all.
Is this not right?
They are very confident. The questions are:
(1) Of the people who do not become symptomatic carriers of CV19, how many are unsymptomatic? and (2) How contagious are these people?
We don't really know the answer to either definitively, but we do know that those people who were symptomatically sick with CV19 after being vaccinated demonstrated very low levels of viral shedding, so that it is a very good reason to be confident that the vaccinated population will not be major spreaders of the disease.
The question is does the vaccine reduce the viral load in the host and hence reduce viral shedding or is the reduction in viral shedding because of the lack of symptoms ie coughs and sneezes (which spread diseases, apparently).
Can someone explain what she hopes to achieve with all this, other than ramming home the notion that Boris's deal is actually a bit shit.
I would agree with you if UVDL had not made such a catastrophic error in the way the EU dealt with the vaccine issue and A16
She has open the door wide open and Foster has just walked through it
I expect this issue will be fudged at all levels for an indefinite period, as there isn't a practical solution otherwise it would have been found already
There is a solution but it requires a little bit of flexibility from the EU. The problem is that folks in Brussels are purists - they should outsource this topic to the RoI
Can someone explain what she hopes to achieve with all this, other than ramming home the notion that Boris's deal is actually a bit shit.
I would agree with you if UVDL had not made such a catastrophic error in the way the EU dealt with the vaccine issue and A16
She has open the door wide open and Foster has just walked through it
I expect this issue will be fudged at all levels for an indefinite period, as there isn't a practical solution otherwise it would have been found already
There is a solution but it requires a little bit of flexibility from the EU. The problem is that folks in Brussels are purists - they should outsource this topic to the RoI
"Britain outside the EU was able to operate as a “speedboat” in securing coronavirus vaccines, the European Commission president admitted today.
In an acknowledgement of Europe’s slow pace of vaccine rollout, Ursula von der Leyen said that operating on its own allowed the UK to move more nimbly to secure supplies."
I voted Remain and 5 years after Brexit finally I see the best argument yet for Leave! Go Ursula go!
It is a good story for Leave, but it really is the only one, which ensures Brexit apologists will harp on about it for years and years. It is a bit like when Scotland occasionally win (or even draw) at rugby or football, we all have to suffer their continuous crowing, but it doesn't change the fact that their team is actually crap.
Credit to you for recognising that it is a success. It's the first major post Brexit win but won't be the only one.
The simple fact is that being nimble works, being sclerotic does not.
This is a point I've made to you on many occasions in the past and you just couldn't see past a simpleminded mentality of "EU big. Big good. Big smash small. Goliath beat David. Hulk smash."
This won't be the last time post Brexit Britain can be more adept and agile than the EU.
Of course it won't, to believe otherwise would be as simplistic as those folk that blindly believe in Brexit. I am sure that sometimes Albania (whom we have just done a trade deal with "hurrah!") will be more "agile" than the UK. There will be advantages to Brexit ( I am trying to find some right now!) but they will be in totality outweighed by disadvantages overall. That is simple economics. How big these disadvantages are in the long run are will be down to those that run businesses who will try to compensate for the numpties that persuaded people Brexit was a good idea.
Difference between tactics and strategy. If you're small and nimble, you can get tactical wins, maybe quite frequently. But over time, strategy and size tend to win out. In the same way that some pirates get ahead of the game for a while, but navies win in the end.
'It was, on the face of it, a mismatched contest. The anbv Naiguatá, a Venezuelan patrol vessel, was armed with a 76mm naval gun, a German-built anti-aircraft system that sprays a cloud of tungsten bullets and a pair of deck-mounted machine guns, among other weaponry. The rcgs Resolute, a Portuguese-flagged cruise ship with an 80-seat theatre, had the top speed of an oil tanker. But in the early hours of March 30th it was Venezuela’s Bolivarian navy whose ship ended up on the seabed—in the first decisive naval skirmish in the Caribbean for 75 years.'
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
My wife had her Pride of England AZ shot earlier this week. She was quite ill for about a day but is now up and about catching up on her Dura Ace bollocking backlog.
I'm not liking all the "feel crook for 48 hours" reportage. Might not have it now. Big side benefit of that is I will accrue immense moral authority to argue for a global priority for the vaccine. People will have to sit up and listen.
A real problem for your "global priority" crusade: what do you say if, as an example, China decides that rather than vaccinate the Uighurs it'll buy a couple more small African countries not already in its portfolio with the vaccines instead? Easy for me: I say there's a moral imperative to look after your own before you look after others. What do you say, that doesn't license countries less nice than us to leave their own poor and disadvantaged without state protection?
It's clever, Ishmael, but I escape thus. The need to channel vaccines to where the Covid need is greatest there bumps up against the need to keep racial (or religious) discrimination entirely out of it. And the latter prevails.
Leaving the ball entirely in the Chineses court to determine where the need (on medical grounds only, honest!) is greater.
Appalling what seems to be happening there. But assuming ivory tower pure theory territory, my argument is that for maximum anti-Covid efficiency AND ethics the vaccination would be driven by relative needs at the global level. Of course in the real world, money and politics and national capabilities and priorities are in the box seat. It will be interesting how the factors play out and a balance is struck as the rollout proceeds throughout this year and beyond.
If I ruled the world, the global effort would be targeted, not nobody above 20% before everyone at 20%. We'd target countries/regions where new mutations are known to be arising - Brazil and South Africa - and aim to get beyond herd immunity there asap. And then move on to the next worst hotspot, and so on.
Exactly.
The problem is that such a righteous approach would almost certainly result in unintended consequences. One of the advantages in letting, say, the UK or Israel blaze a trail and get all its population vaccinated is that it will then create a demand that far from starving the rest of the world of supply will most likely cause a race which will result in greater and enhanced manufacturing capability causing surplus. Self interest often produces much faster response overall than massive state bureaucracies where the man in the international bowler hat knows best, particularly in matters such as pharmaceuticals.
On a related note, I wonder whether Corbyn and those of his persuasion will be refusing the jab on moral grounds that he does not want to endorse the global pharma industry?
Yes, I do get this. There's no realistic way - the world being the way it is - to implement what in theory is the optimal approach to the global rollout of the vaccine.
Jez? Must have had it by now surely. The problem is more his brother.
I imagine (no evidence) that schoolchildren have been the main vector of infection in the last few months. If I'm right then the idea that Labour have that you vaccinate teachers and reopen schools would be the worst thing you could do. You'd establish the infection-network and yet remove the most obvious indicators.
Anyhoo, the UK may have just become a teeny weeny bit attractive to interesting foreigners, which is great news for the economy, especially for the financial services and legal sectors.
The Supreme Court has curbed the Serious Fraud Office’s extra-territorial powers, ruling that it cannot demand documents held outside the UK by a foreign company under the Criminal Justice Act 1987.
In KRB v SFO, the Supreme Court found that the SFO overreached itself when it issued a notice under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice 1987. The notice required US engineering conglomerate KBR Inc to produce material held overseas.
A UK subsidiary of KRB provided the SFO with documents in 2017. However, when the investigator attempted to obtain documents held outside of the UK, KRB applied for judicial review to quash the notice.
In a judgment handed down this morning, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld KRB’s appeal. It found that section 2(3) of the 1987 act is generally not intended to have extra-territorial effect and that the presumption clearly applies in this case because KBR, Inc is not a UK company, and has never had a registered office or carried on business in the UK.
The court also rejected the argument that parliament intended section 2(3) to give the SFO the power to compel a foreign company to produce documents it holds outside the UK.
In judgment Lord Lloyd-Jones stated that successive acts of parliament have developed structures in domestic law which permit the UK to participate in international systems of mutual legal assistance in relation to criminal proceedings and investigations.
‘It is to my mind inherently improbable that parliament should have refined this machinery as it did, while intending to leave in place a parallel system for obtaining evidence from abroad which could operate on the unilateral demand of the SFO, without any recourse to the courts or authorities of the state where the evidence was located and without the protection of any of the safeguards put in place under the scheme of mutual legal assistance,’ he said.
The court ruled there was no basis for the divisional court’s finding that the SFO could use the power in section 2(3) to require foreign companies to produce documents held outside the UK if there was a sufficient connection between the company and the UK.
Commentators said the judgment could significantly alter how the SFO conducts extra-territorial investigations.
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
I thought the subject matter experts were very confident - albeit perhaps not 100% sure - that having the vaccine not only reduces your chances of getting sick IF you're infected but also reduces your chances of getting infected at all.
Is this not right?
They are very confident. The questions are:
(1) Of the people who do not become symptomatic carriers of CV19, how many are unsymptomatic? and (2) How contagious are these people?
We don't really know the answer to either definitively, but we do know that those people who were symptomatically sick with CV19 after being vaccinated demonstrated very low levels of viral shedding, so that it is a very good reason to be confident that the vaccinated population will not be major spreaders of the disease.
The question is does the vaccine reduce the viral load in the host and hence reduce viral shedding or is the reduction in viral shedding because of the lack of symptoms ie coughs and sneezes (which spread diseases, apparently).
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
AOC would challenge Harris and Buttigieg if Biden did not run again in 2024 certainly
She is certainly the obvious one right now. And she has a huge and dedicated following, at least on social media. They're probably concentrated in the wrong places to really help her win the nomination. I doubt she'd make much headway in the Southern states that refused to vote for anyone but Biden this time around, and I cannot see the wider Democrat party being dumb enough to pick her.
No but AOC would pick up the torch of the Democratic left from Sanders.
If she won the nomination and Pence won the GOP nomination, Pence would arguably then be the moderate candidate against her.
AOC won't stand in 2024 - she would only just be 35.
If and when AOC stands it will be far later 2032 or 2036.
I agree. And I expect her to be President by one of those years - she's genuinely charismatic and appealing. And by 2032 or 2036, you can bet that she will have moderated some of what many perceive as her current excesses; she is very ambitious.
She is the US Corbyn, just a more telegenic one
AOC is NOT the US Corbyn! C'mon HYUFD.
It's hard to see how she might be given that Corbyn's politics are forever stuck in the 1970s. But I think it's probably fair to say that HYUFD doesn't understand US politics very well.
I'd say we do not have a 'UK AOC' - but I hope one is bubbling under.
She's certainly more left wing than I am, but lefty social democrat rather than out and out socialist, I think. Quoted as favouring policies that "most closely resemble what we see in the U.K., in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden...", so in Europe she'd be more of a consensus politician.
Boris and Eck are the two most reviled figures in Scotland, and no-one else has any real resonance.
Unless Eck does a Samson act and collapses the entire temple when he appears, she will glide to a fairly easy election win in May.
The question then is: what does she do?
I don't think the Scottish public, actually, will really be up for a prolonged wrangle about the constitution.
They like Nic, but they won't be interested in a dog-fight over IndyRef2. I think she recognises that but not so sure about the camp-followers. Therein lies the interest.
Boris, of course, will just shrug, say nah, and watch the bunfight.
Yes, I think the England hospital data has been entered twice and all the data has been doubled.
Oh dear.
Max did you see my question upthread?
Is it the case as per the Oxford study that the AZN vaccine inhibits transmission? I read a 54% headline but then heard two thirds bandied around?
Hey, just saw it. So far it's not clear to me that it definitely does. The numbers are far too small to tell. We will get real world data on this fairly soon so not long to wait now.
Thanks. And interesting (small numbers).
I am just interested in the vaccine passport issue. If people will need them I'm not sure I know the difference between someone with the virus who has been jabbed and is asymptomatic and someone with the virus who hasn't been jabbed and is asymptomatic.
If people are demanding vaccine passports I'm wondering what the difference in risk is and that a test is perhaps a better bet in either case.
The vaccine passport issue is about reducing indoor risk to eliminate social distancing and putting social pressure on refuseniks so our herd immunity isn't undermined. Ultimately we all have a responsibility to each other to be vaccinated and if people who refuse are limited in what they can do by private businesses then I think it's fair.
Yes I get that. If people aren't vaccinated then they may well get ill themselves and then be a burden on the NHS.
If they get ill and are asymptomatic, however, then if they pose the same risk as someone who hasn't been vaccinated there is no big issue in getting vaccinated for the end of restrictions. Just that everyone (may) get it just that no one goes to hospital.
I will be getting vaccinated be clear. But it is the logic and the narrative around vaccinations that interests me. They are being talked about as though they stop onwards transmission hence my question to you.
If, say, someone with the virus goes to Greece, it doesn't matter (as far as we know for sure) whether they have been vaccinated or not in terms of transmission risk. So vaccine passports are moot.
There's an increasing amount of evidence that the vaccinated - even if they catch CV19 - are not particularly contagious.
I thought the subject matter experts were very confident - albeit perhaps not 100% sure - that having the vaccine not only reduces your chances of getting sick IF you're infected but also reduces your chances of getting infected at all.
Is this not right?
They are very confident. The questions are:
(1) Of the people who do not become symptomatic carriers of CV19, how many are unsymptomatic? and (2) How contagious are these people?
We don't really know the answer to either definitively, but we do know that those people who were symptomatically sick with CV19 after being vaccinated demonstrated very low levels of viral shedding, so that it is a very good reason to be confident that the vaccinated population will not be major spreaders of the disease.
Right. So either I'm underthinking this or my mate TOPPING is overthinking it. Or it's the third way and we're at cross purposes. Because if the vaccine means you are less likely to get infected then ergo the vaccine reduces your chance of spreading it - since you have to get infected to be able to spread it. That's how I'm looking at this.
Joanna Cherry has launched a spectacular attack on Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership of the SNP, accusing the party of “Stalinist revisionism” after she was sacked from the Westminster frontbench.
In her first public intervention since being dismissed as justice and home affairs spokeswoman, Cherry compared her omission from the SNP press release detailing the reshuffle to a Soviet-era wiping from history.
She also invited comparisons with Alex Salmond’s accusation in 2019 that Nicola Sturgeon had been “rewriting history” after his pivotal role in the rise of the SNP was removed from the party website.
“I got 30 minutes’ notice of the announcement, no proper explanation of why I was being sacked and no acknowledgement of or any thanks at all for the work I have done in that role over the last five-and-a-half years,” Cherry wrote in The National.
“Indeed, the press release announcing the reshuffle was a masterly piece of Stalinist revisionism in which I was not even mentioned. Airbrushed from history. A non-person. Sounds familiar?”
Cherry claimed to have been unaware of an 11-point plan unveiled as a “plan B” for forcing a second independence referendum until she read it in the media, adding “there is no functioning link between MPs and the leadership”.
It is understood that it has been about five years since Cherry and Sturgeon had a “proper conversation” despite the Edinburgh South West MP having led the legal case against the prorogation of the UK parliament during that time.
Personally I thought Nicola Sturgeon was more of a Nikita Khrushchev.
You know you are responding like a grown up when you start referring to a factional political squabble with reference to mass murdering dictators. She's obviously taking things well.
Perhaps there should be the equivalent of a Godwin's Law for Communism/The Soviet Union?
I think I coined Godwinov's Law years ago when the PB herd was in one of its periodic reds under the bed panics.
Comments
I'd like to see that back under 1% soon.
Where were the studies - apart from the Oxford paper?
The simple fact is that being nimble works, being sclerotic does not.
This is a point I've made to you on many occasions in the past and you just couldn't see past a simpleminded mentality of "EU big. Big good. Big smash small. Goliath beat David. Hulk smash."
This won't be the last time post Brexit Britain can be more adept and agile than the EU.
Sunday normally has a smashing return. I expect the RRR will fall very significantly on Sunday which will be like hitting a few 6s in an over.
I believe the fund is managed by Coutts & Co.
The AZ trial was too, especially the UK one because of the stupid dosing error and unplanned variable gaps between doses, however the overall trial was still good enough to get approval. We'll see if the Russian one is when they apply for approval with the EMA and MHRA later this year, both are competent.
https://twitter.com/IrishTimesWorld/status/1357722410015813633
Given that cases and other numbers come in over a period of days, it wouldn't be strange if a "reporting day" for vaccinations represents vaccinations spread over several days.
Equally unquestionably there are lessons to be learned by the EU, and one of themnI suggest is to get rid of UvdL a bit smartish. In other words to have a more responsive Administration, more answerable to the elected representatives.
As I said I am interested in the popular (ie non-PB) narrative of what the "vaccine passports" are supposed to achieve.
We shall have to see how they are come to be seen and used by govt, business and the media.
In the same way that some pirates get ahead of the game for a while, but navies win in the end.
Is Nicola Sturgeon the new Stalin?
Joanna Cherry has launched a spectacular attack on Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership of the SNP, accusing the party of “Stalinist revisionism” after she was sacked from the Westminster frontbench.
In her first public intervention since being dismissed as justice and home affairs spokeswoman, Cherry compared her omission from the SNP press release detailing the reshuffle to a Soviet-era wiping from history.
She also invited comparisons with Alex Salmond’s accusation in 2019 that Nicola Sturgeon had been “rewriting history” after his pivotal role in the rise of the SNP was removed from the party website.
“I got 30 minutes’ notice of the announcement, no proper explanation of why I was being sacked and no acknowledgement of or any thanks at all for the work I have done in that role over the last five-and-a-half years,” Cherry wrote in The National.
“Indeed, the press release announcing the reshuffle was a masterly piece of Stalinist revisionism in which I was not even mentioned. Airbrushed from history. A non-person. Sounds familiar?”
Cherry claimed to have been unaware of an 11-point plan unveiled as a “plan B” for forcing a second independence referendum until she read it in the media, adding “there is no functioning link between MPs and the leadership”.
It is understood that it has been about five years since Cherry and Sturgeon had a “proper conversation” despite the Edinburgh South West MP having led the legal case against the prorogation of the UK parliament during that time.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/joanna-cherry-accuses-nicola-sturgeon-and-snp-of-stalinist-revisionism-after-sacking-8bdgd6trh
Personally I thought Nicola Sturgeon was more of a Nikita Khrushchev.
On a related note, I wonder whether Corbyn and those of his persuasion will be refusing the jab on moral grounds that he does not want to endorse the global pharma industry?
Get cheapest (vanguard, blackrock, etc) and consider all expenses.
I don't like Joanna Cherry - and that's almost surely an unfair view. Nonetheless I just don't like her.
Of course, if you plan to bugger around in GME, then you should open an account with Interactive Brokers and then prepare to have a *very* exciting time.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-enemy/
I'd also note that the Russians are currently running at about the same pace as Romania (in terms of *absolute* doses given, so it's far from clear they have meaningful quantities available for export.
Is this not right?
https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/government/uae-approves-russia-s-sputnik-v-vaccine-for-use-1.1151116
(I find it interesting that the Sinopharm and Sputnik vaccines had local trials here, but the Pfizer and AZ were approved without them).
(As an aside: Pfizer is a firm with $40bn of sales per year. They have announced their new target is 2 billion doses of their vaccine this year. At $30/time, that is $80bn of additional sales. CV19 vaccines are going to account for an insane proportion of pharmaceuticals spend this year.)
No you're in no position to comment.
Well of course many people have been very badly affected - but on the other hand an awful lot of people are miles better off.
In total the British public has saved - ie banked - an additional £150bn.
There are approx 25m households - so that's £6,000 per household on average.
So for every household which has saved nothing, another has banked £12,000.
And people wonder why the Conservatives win elections - well forget everything to do with policies - before you start there's a big pool of people with piles of cash and they know which Party is least likely to be going after it (!)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9228027/Families-reveal-spending-lockdown-savings.html
(1) Of the people who do not become symptomatic carriers of CV19, how many are unsymptomatic?
and
(2) How contagious are these people?
We don't really know the answer to either definitively, but we do know that those people who were symptomatically sick with CV19 after being vaccinated demonstrated very low levels of viral shedding, so that it is a very good reason to be confident that the vaccinated population will not be major spreaders of the disease.
Gavin Williamson is a threat to human life and he needs to be removed from office immediately.
https://twitter.com/p_surridge/status/1357736465170649090
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/jeremy-corbyn-s-attack-dog-quits-labour-allegedy-ahead-of-an-investigation-into-his-conduct-1.511596
https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2020/04/11/venezuelas-navy-battles-a-cruise-ship-and-loses
'It was, on the face of it, a mismatched contest. The anbv Naiguatá, a Venezuelan patrol vessel, was armed with a 76mm naval gun, a German-built anti-aircraft system that sprays a cloud of tungsten bullets and a pair of deck-mounted machine guns, among other weaponry. The rcgs Resolute, a Portuguese-flagged cruise ship with an 80-seat theatre, had the top speed of an oil tanker. But in the early hours of March 30th it was Venezuela’s Bolivarian navy whose ship ended up on the seabed—in the first decisive naval skirmish in the Caribbean for 75 years.'
The apalling contempt shown to the Holyrood inquiry by Peter Murrell in particular:
Feb 1 - "I won't appear before the committee"
Feb 4 - Salmond's submission to the inquiry will now not be published or considered.
Feb 4 - "OK, I will attend"
Jez? Must have had it by now surely. The problem is more his brother.
The Supreme Court has curbed the Serious Fraud Office’s extra-territorial powers, ruling that it cannot demand documents held outside the UK by a foreign company under the Criminal Justice Act 1987.
In KRB v SFO, the Supreme Court found that the SFO overreached itself when it issued a notice under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice 1987. The notice required US engineering conglomerate KBR Inc to produce material held overseas.
A UK subsidiary of KRB provided the SFO with documents in 2017. However, when the investigator attempted to obtain documents held outside of the UK, KRB applied for judicial review to quash the notice.
In a judgment handed down this morning, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld KRB’s appeal. It found that section 2(3) of the 1987 act is generally not intended to have extra-territorial effect and that the presumption clearly applies in this case because KBR, Inc is not a UK company, and has never had a registered office or carried on business in the UK.
The court also rejected the argument that parliament intended section 2(3) to give the SFO the power to compel a foreign company to produce documents it holds outside the UK.
In judgment Lord Lloyd-Jones stated that successive acts of parliament have developed structures in domestic law which permit the UK to participate in international systems of mutual legal assistance in relation to criminal proceedings and investigations.
‘It is to my mind inherently improbable that parliament should have refined this machinery as it did, while intending to leave in place a parallel system for obtaining evidence from abroad which could operate on the unilateral demand of the SFO, without any recourse to the courts or authorities of the state where the evidence was located and without the protection of any of the safeguards put in place under the scheme of mutual legal assistance,’ he said.
The court ruled there was no basis for the divisional court’s finding that the SFO could use the power in section 2(3) to require foreign companies to produce documents held outside the UK if there was a sufficient connection between the company and the UK.
Commentators said the judgment could significantly alter how the SFO conducts extra-territorial investigations.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/supreme-court-clips-serious-fraud-offices-wings/5107321.article
Quoted as favouring policies that "most closely resemble what we see in the U.K., in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden...", so in Europe she'd be more of a consensus politician.
Thing is Nicola chooses her enemies well.
Boris and Eck are the two most reviled figures in Scotland, and no-one else has any real resonance.
Unless Eck does a Samson act and collapses the entire temple when he appears, she will glide to a fairly easy election win in May.
The question then is: what does she do?
I don't think the Scottish public, actually, will really be up for a prolonged wrangle about the constitution.
They like Nic, but they won't be interested in a dog-fight over IndyRef2. I think she recognises that but not so sure about the camp-followers. Therein lies the interest.
Boris, of course, will just shrug, say nah, and watch the bunfight.
Wait a darned minute, didn't you do the PB pompous fanny thing of saying that you would no longer be engaging with me?