Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
I guess a key point will be when the government decides that sufficient have been vaccinated to convert legal restrictions on liberty to "mere" guidance.
That day will, I predict, be long overdue - delayed because of some people, including opposition politicians and some in the media, who have an interest in maximising damage not minimising it.
OK Billy Bunters, 2nd Test starts tomorrow. We cleaned up last time and we can do the same again.
The wicket will be if anything drier and more baked than the adjacent pitch which yielded fourty wickets in a session and a half short of five days in the first Test. There is no rain forecast in an area where weather forecasting is a little easier than it is in this country. There is no way this match will result in a draw.
The toss will be vital again. The odds should be heavily in favor of whoever bats first. Betfair odds are: India 1.66 England 4.1 Draw 6.4 The draw is a gift but if you want to back England you will be getting terrific odds on the toss of a coin. India's odds can only be explained by 'heart ruling head' amongst Asian punters. They lost the first Test by 227 ffs and it was no fluke. England have made changes but I don't think the side is any the weaker for it. They may even be a shade stronger.
Starts 4am on Channel 4. Set your alarm and try not to miss the toss.
Cricinfo, which is pretty good on these things, reckons the pitch will take spin from day one. It will be a result pitch, That's perfectly legitimate and understandable, but if India lose the toss again I expect them to lose the match again.
I'd agree that a result is more likely than the draw. But five times more ?
I have put a couple of bob on England, and a bit more on the draw as a trading bet. FWIW.
Scottish government warning that vaccinations will slow down due to reduced supplies, which implies that England was already supply-limited while Scotland was working through its stockpile.
Looks to be spot on. The good thing is that the Govt. seems to have been on the money when it said it would reach its mid-February target - but only just. It knew what supplies were due and when - and thankfully they have arrived without any buggering about. It knew that supply should be capable of being stuck in arms - and they have organised it brilliantly.
There will now be little reason to doubt them when they give future roll-out targets. Which will be a wonderful novelty...
Especially given what's happened to UVDL they must have had justified confidence on the supplies too.
It was my understanding that, quite a while ago, there was sufficient vaccine physically in the UK to make the 14th deadline.
The question is what comes after that, I think...
Indeed. Zahawi has clearly done a good job monitoring and organising this. I thought it was interesting the other day when he spoke about "having sight" of vaccines more than a month in advance - while the EU Commission acted with shock and horror days before their vaccinations were due to begin.
Not just the ordering, but the whole supply chain from order to distribution has been incredibly well put together in this country. Not something you get to say very often.
Yes - that is the old route that goods in a reliable supply chain can be treated as part of stock.
E-fit reveals public thinks lawyers are posh white men in crap ties
A team at the University of Law has made the most of lockdown by compiling an e-fit purporting to represent the British public's idea of a typical worker in the legal industry, and RollOnFriday is sorry to report that it's an estate agent.
Ulaw generated Frankenployee after surveying 2,000 members of the public. Their answers produced a diversity killer who is male, 35-44 year-old, clean-shaven, tattoo-free and unpierced.
Patrick Johnson, ULaw's Director of Equality, Diversity & Inclusion, said the research "has highlighted a stark reality, which is that more needs to be done to give solicitors septum rings and ink up bazzas redefine what someone working in the legal industry can look like. It is no longer a profession solely for upper class white males, but in fact, accessible to all".
Legal regulators hope the new Solicitors Qualifying Exam and cheaper Bar courses will improve access to the profession in England and Wales, and hasten the demise of the privileged legal stereotype represented by the e-fit.
However, the survey results indicate that the public's conception of law is marginally less pale, male and posh than the e-fit suggests.
While 48% of people pictured those working in the legal industry as white, 12% pictured them as BAME and 38% pictured them as having any ethnicity. And although 25% pictured legal industry workers as male, 19% visualised them as female and 55% saw them as male or female. The public was more certain on class, with 48% or the respondents picturing someone in the legal industry to be upper middle class, and 8% picturing them as upper class.
Not that the perceptions are not an issue, but surely the fact that the picture is not as (overwhelmingly) accurate as it once might have been, that it is a more diverse picture than that, means that public perception of the profession has not been a barrier to people realising it is accessible to all?
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
At the end of the day there doesn't seem that big a disparity across the various nations of the UK. Some a little faster here, then a little slower, but it's pretty close overall.
I think supply is what is causing this. England are doing less this week than last so are limited to what they can do.
As we saw from previous figures, Scotland had more unused vaccines, which was more than likely a function of concentrating on care homes first and now they are now using all of these (which is obviously great). We saw the same with Wales, they had an initial policy to reserve Pfizer jabs for later, but then changed course.
Canada has been dragged into the EU's vaccine chaos with Pfizer and Moderna both cutting back deliveries from Europe while Brussels goes to war on jab exports to rescue its own stumbling vaccine roll-out.
With no home-grown vaccines in Canada and no jabs being shipped from the United States, the country is reliant on factories in Europe to supply the doses.
But Moderna's next shipment will be one-third smaller than expected - with only 168,000 jabs arriving instead of 250,000 - while Pfizer deliveries have seen a month-long slowdown because of delays at a manufacturing plant in Belgium.
A Canadian government source told the Toronto Star that the EU's new checks had hampered the delivery of Moderna supplies to countries such as Canada.
What I like is when the various Scottish Health Boards gave figures for how many healthcare workers there would be to vaccinate they under-estimated by almost 40,000 staff (21% underestimate!).
Who do they think they have been paying?
Maybe they tried to distinguish between frontline staff that do need the vaccine now and back office that don't, which of course is a blurred line because people that don't directly work with patients might still need to work with people that do.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
I guess a key point will be when the government decides that sufficient have been vaccinated to convert legal restrictions on liberty to "mere" guidance.
That day will, I predict, be long overdue - delayed because of some people, including opposition politicians and some in the media, who have an interest in maximising damage not minimising it.
Like all things, there will of course be an overshoot, given the nature of the restrictions to date. People are desperate to get down the pub/club/footie/race meeting and get seriously battered. And hence there will be a hump in infections but yes you are right - when rules/regulations/law turns to guidelines will be an important moment.
As I have long said, all that matters is hospitalisations. Once that is low (enough) then all the restrictions can legitimately be reviewed.
Canada has been dragged into the EU's vaccine chaos with Pfizer and Moderna both cutting back deliveries from Europe while Brussels goes to war on jab exports to rescue its own stumbling vaccine roll-out.
With no home-grown vaccines in Canada and no jabs being shipped from the United States, the country is reliant on factories in Europe to supply the doses.
But Moderna's next shipment will be one-third smaller than expected - with only 168,000 jabs arriving instead of 250,000 - while Pfizer deliveries have seen a month-long slowdown because of delays at a manufacturing plant in Belgium.
A Canadian government source told the Toronto Star that the EU's new checks had hampered the delivery of Moderna supplies to countries such as Canada.
Scottish government warning that vaccinations will slow down due to reduced supplies, which implies that England was already supply-limited while Scotland was working through its stockpile.
I speculated that in the last week as it would fit with the evidence.
Although I think the anecdotes from yesterday are true that England has been hunting around trying to get the 70+ done. There was a post on our village FB page from the local surgery asking anyone over 70 who has not been done to let them know as they had appointments for Saturday. I imagine they were reserving slots which is likely to cause a slowdown if not filled. One would hope with the target out the way on Monday that they crack on with everyone over 60 ASAP.
Point of order: over 65s, then they have to stop to do the clinically not-quite-so-vulnerable. However, the good news is that, assuming the current rate of progress is maintained, the state jab machine should be through all of those in three weeks, or perhaps a bit less given that we know that cohorts 5 & 6 have already started being seen in some areas.
The only thing that makes me think they might slow down a little is the fact that, again running at the current rate, cohort 9 should be cleared through their first jabs by about the end of March, but the Government is talking about the start of May. Given that they were almost spot on with the first target, I do wonder now if they're genuinely expecting supply issues to cause a bit of a slowdown over the next few weeks; Sturgeon and Drakeford have both suggested as much already.
Is that because by the end of March we will be needing to do the second jabs for a lot of people if they are to be done within 12 weeks?
Amazed there isn't more comment on Scotland vaccinating over 100% of it's older care home residents in long term care.
30,027
Congratulations on the mathematically inevitable achievement.
I hope that puts to rest any notions that the 99.6% of really being 30k figure was ever at all credible. Though oddly now that >60k per day are being done we're not hearing about 100.1% being claimed anymore.
I honestly don't understand the confusion. There's never been any deception that the 30k was a nearest 1000 rounding. The technical notes for the Scottish vaccination plan makes it clear that there is no accurate "to the resident" figure for all the reasons that you've previously stated and they rounded to the nearest 1000.
Indeed but some were taking the 99.6% figure seriously while others were saying it was ridiculous and clearly incorrect. It didn't pass the sniff test.
Its fine using round figures as ballparks but once people start putting third degrees of significance and claiming its accurate it all becomes silly. Even saying 99% would have come across as less silly than 99.6%
Indeed, the 10th of a percentage point was always ridiculous.
There were also people were also desperate for the "true" figure to be around 80% to match England. Which also didn't pass the sniff test because that would mean in the middle of pandemic that had sliced through care homes occupancy would have had to have risen by a net 18% in the last year.
Close to half a million including NI then. RRR should come tumbling down today.
Funny to think that this time last month many people were talking about potentially doing 200k per week.
Given the real target is 14.6m, we'll probably basically hit it by 10am tomorrow, even if it isn;t reported as such until Sunday.
Of course the target is just to offer a dose to everyone in 1-4 and that target has clearly been met - anyone not already vaccinated or booked in simply didn't want / made no effort to get one.
Once again, the real target is NOT 14.6 million. It is 15 million.
Although it is true that if you add up every cohort you reach 14.6 million, the NHS itself chose to use the 15 million number, thus that is the target.
That all said, it's all academic stuff reserved for pedanticbetting.com because it will surpass the 15 million anyway, possibly without needing the final counting day on Monday.
14.6m is 15m when rounded. The table in the official vaccine strategy says ~15m but the numbers add up to 14.6. It's pretty clear to anyone familiar with the rounding of numbers what the real target it. It's also clear to anyone with a grasp of reality how unimportant this distinction is given both will be easily hit, likely on the same day.
It was a stretch target, I believe. To get within 10% of it would have been a decent result. As it is I think we can be glad, and impressed.
Yep, if they had said the target was end of Feb everyone would have thought it was impressive - they stretched themselves and still hit.
More interesting question is why their new publically announced targets are massively unstretching - are they getting cocky, or is there bad news coming?
Second doses will be underway in earnest.
My wife's booked in for her second dose later this month. There will be millions of second doses over March and April.
Aptil sure, but if they're following their own dosing policy there shouldn't be more than 0.7m due before the last week of March, and on current trends they should therefore be able to complete all 1-9 on first doses by then. Either they are not following the 12 week policy, or they expect to be losing supply rather than ramping up.
Very odd given Oxford only delivered 3m doses in January so should be primed for a speed up very soon if their 100m are arriving even half as quick as claimed.
12 weeks is a limit not a target. My wife's second jab is 10 weeks after her first for what its worth, not sure how others will be scheduled.
Indeed, and I know others with similar time gaps. Does seem a little cautious at least for Oxford 2nd doses given what we know of the impact of lag on efficacy - perhaps 12 weeks should be a target and not a limit for them.
I think there's three good reasons for caution.
Better to under promise and over-deliver.
They had "sight" of February's deliveries. They won't have sight of March's deliveries yet. Some precaution here in case there's disruption is wise.
Some precaution in case they wish to tweak delivery schedule makes sense. EG first dose gives most of the protection but there's diminishing returns as you get through the priority groups. At what stage does priority ones second dose become more important than the next group in your lists first dose? Is it worth giving first doses to healthy 50 year olds before you've given the second dose to care homes?
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
If I may say, I think you have lost your way of late on PB. Perhaps a consequence of you dipping in and out so your posts have only dealt with bits and bobs and not really delved into the meat of the issue. And who could blame you - better things to do I'm sure.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
I guess a key point will be when the government decides that sufficient have been vaccinated to convert legal restrictions on liberty to "mere" guidance.
That day will, I predict, be long overdue - delayed because of some people, including opposition politicians and some in the media, who have an interest in maximising damage not minimising it.
Like all things, there will of course be an overshoot, given the nature of the restrictions to date. People are desperate to get down the pub/club/footie/race meeting and get seriously battered. And hence there will be a hump in infections but yes you are right - when rules/regulations/law turns to guidelines will be an important moment.
As I have long said, all that matters is hospitalisations. Once that is low (enough) then all the restrictions can legitimately be reviewed.
What is low enough though? I want a figure from Johnson in ten days' time please.
What I like is when the various Scottish Health Boards gave figures for how many healthcare workers there would be to vaccinate they under-estimated by almost 40,000 staff (21% underestimate!).
Who do they think they have been paying?
Maybe they tried to distinguish between frontline staff that do need the vaccine now and back office that don't, which of course is a blurred line because people that don't directly work with patients might still need to work with people that do.
The staff room/canteen issue - it's impossible to segregate staff like that. Much easier to vaccinate anyone who is regularly in the building.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
I guess a key point will be when the government decides that sufficient have been vaccinated to convert legal restrictions on liberty to "mere" guidance.
That day will, I predict, be long overdue - delayed because of some people, including opposition politicians and some in the media, who have an interest in maximising damage not minimising it.
Like all things, there will of course be an overshoot, given the nature of the restrictions to date. People are desperate to get down the pub/club/footie/race meeting and get seriously battered. And hence there will be a hump in infections but yes you are right - when rules/regulations/law turns to guidelines will be an important moment.
As I have long said, all that matters is hospitalisations. Once that is low (enough) then all the restrictions can legitimately be reviewed.
What is low enough though? I want a figure from Johnson in ten days' time please.
Yep. The danger is that no figure will be low enough such that they won't say "well we just need to wait XX until we can be sure".
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
If I may say, I think you have lost your way of late on PB. Perhaps a consequence of you dipping in and out so your posts have only dealt with bits and bobs and not really delved into the meat of the issue. And who could blame you - better things to do I'm sure.
This post is an example of that, sadly.
A bit mean! I`m jumping to kinabalu`s defence on this.
E-fit reveals public thinks lawyers are posh white men in crap ties
A team at the University of Law has made the most of lockdown by compiling an e-fit purporting to represent the British public's idea of a typical worker in the legal industry, and RollOnFriday is sorry to report that it's an estate agent.
Ulaw generated Frankenployee after surveying 2,000 members of the public. Their answers produced a diversity killer who is male, 35-44 year-old, clean-shaven, tattoo-free and unpierced.
Patrick Johnson, ULaw's Director of Equality, Diversity & Inclusion, said the research "has highlighted a stark reality, which is that more needs to be done to give solicitors septum rings and ink up bazzas redefine what someone working in the legal industry can look like. It is no longer a profession solely for upper class white males, but in fact, accessible to all".
Legal regulators hope the new Solicitors Qualifying Exam and cheaper Bar courses will improve access to the profession in England and Wales, and hasten the demise of the privileged legal stereotype represented by the e-fit.
However, the survey results indicate that the public's conception of law is marginally less pale, male and posh than the e-fit suggests.
While 48% of people pictured those working in the legal industry as white, 12% pictured them as BAME and 38% pictured them as having any ethnicity. And although 25% pictured legal industry workers as male, 19% visualised them as female and 55% saw them as male or female. The public was more certain on class, with 48% or the respondents picturing someone in the legal industry to be upper middle class, and 8% picturing them as upper class.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services is very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
I am very much with you and @contrarian on this one. It seems with Covid what everyone has focused on is the "gross" cost of Covid i.e. what is the impact of Covid on people's health. What they should be focusing on is the "net" cost i.e. what is the impact of Covid offset by the impacts that Government restrictions are having on mental health, delayed treatments, impact on childrens' education and so forth. For example, we don't get to see the suicide rates until nine months out plus but in countries such as Japan, which reports its data on a monthly basis, we know that the Covid waves have been associated with increased suicides (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/28/asia/japan-suicide-women-covid-dst-intl-hnk/index.html). If you want a look at the impact of the crisis on childrens' mental health, look at what is happening around Las Vegas (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/us/politics/student-suicides-nevada-coronavirus.html)
My fear is that the net cost of this crisis is going to be far, far more significant and that we are not asking enough questions as we should because anyone who questions the official line is deemed to be some sort of flat-earther.
It is only the people making arguments that are akin to flat-earthing who are dismissed as flat-earthers. The Youngs. The Brewers. Contrarian. These guys. There is plenty of scope for debate about lockdown that does not involve covid denial.
Close to half a million including NI then. RRR should come tumbling down today.
Funny to think that this time last month many people were talking about potentially doing 200k per week.
Given the real target is 14.6m, we'll probably basically hit it by 10am tomorrow, even if it isn;t reported as such until Sunday.
Of course the target is just to offer a dose to everyone in 1-4 and that target has clearly been met - anyone not already vaccinated or booked in simply didn't want / made no effort to get one.
Once again, the real target is NOT 14.6 million. It is 15 million.
Although it is true that if you add up every cohort you reach 14.6 million, the NHS itself chose to use the 15 million number, thus that is the target.
That all said, it's all academic stuff reserved for pedanticbetting.com because it will surpass the 15 million anyway, possibly without needing the final counting day on Monday.
14.6m is 15m when rounded. The table in the official vaccine strategy says ~15m but the numbers add up to 14.6. It's pretty clear to anyone familiar with the rounding of numbers what the real target it. It's also clear to anyone with a grasp of reality how unimportant this distinction is given both will be easily hit, likely on the same day.
It was a stretch target, I believe. To get within 10% of it would have been a decent result. As it is I think we can be glad, and impressed.
Yep, if they had said the target was end of Feb everyone would have thought it was impressive - they stretched themselves and still hit.
More interesting question is why their new publically announced targets are massively unstretching - are they getting cocky, or is there bad news coming?
Second doses will be underway in earnest.
My wife's booked in for her second dose later this month. There will be millions of second doses over March and April.
Aptil sure, but if they're following their own dosing policy there shouldn't be more than 0.7m due before the last week of March, and on current trends they should therefore be able to complete all 1-9 on first doses by then. Either they are not following the 12 week policy, or they expect to be losing supply rather than ramping up.
Very odd given Oxford only delivered 3m doses in January so should be primed for a speed up very soon if their 100m are arriving even half as quick as claimed.
12 weeks is a limit not a target. My wife's second jab is 10 weeks after her first for what its worth, not sure how others will be scheduled.
Indeed, and I know others with similar time gaps. Does seem a little cautious at least for Oxford 2nd doses given what we know of the impact of lag on efficacy - perhaps 12 weeks should be a target and not a limit for them.
I think there's three good reasons for caution.
Better to under promise and over-deliver.
They had "sight" of February's deliveries. They won't have sight of March's deliveries yet. Some precaution here in case there's disruption is wise.
Some precaution in case they wish to tweak delivery schedule makes sense. EG first dose gives most of the protection but there's diminishing returns as you get through the priority groups. At what stage does priority ones second dose become more important than the next group in your lists first dose? Is it worth giving first doses to healthy 50 year olds before you've given the second dose to care homes?
3 is a very interesting point, but frankly given the speedy nature of the trials there's very little real data to go on. The Pfizer trial results show no obvious impact on the trend line from dose 2 - just very good immunity kicking in 12 days after dose 1 and then maintaining. Does the 2nd dose really up protection or just act as a booster to maintain it. Is this impact consistent by age group? Unfortunately not sure we'll have reliable answers in advance of when they would be useful. Fortunately that same speed means we'll all end up vaccinated so quickly that the ordering becomes of pretty limited impact. Indeed given the low levels of cases we're heading to, it may all be moot.
Canada seems to have got particularly unlucky in the vaccine rollout given it's ordered absolubtely shitloads. Squeezed from all angles by other larger countries I think.
You make your own luck. I can think of a plucky little country on the doorstep of a superpower (lol) who managed to make it happen.
But yep, does seem rather unfair.
We've done very well no doubt about it with vaccines
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
I get anti lockdown arguments and so forth, but the "questions" asked are 90+% (On twitter generally, not really here) absolute dropped on head as a child stuff.
Canada seems to have got particularly unlucky in the vaccine rollout given it's ordered absolubtely shitloads. Squeezed from all angles by other larger countries I think.
Insofar as I understand it, Canada has suffered from a combination of bad luck and poor decision making. First they got in early with a large order from one of the promising Chinese candidates, but China then slapped an export ban on them (which is thought likely to have been a punishment beating, relations between Canada and China not being terrific.) They were otherwise late ordering alternative supplies, and therefore got stuck behind other nations in the vaccine queues (as well as being stuffed by the well-documented manufacturing problems in the EU.) The Government also poured a ton of money into its own equivalent of the British VMIC project, but that won't be finished before 2022 - whilst opportunities to invest in existing Canadian manufacturers who could've built capacity and delivered doses much more quickly were passed up.
Trudeau is a fuck-up who's now lost his Commons majority and has stumbled through a series of scandals (two or three corruption inquiries and the blackface business on top of that.) Once Canada is finally out of the worst of the pandemic it would not be at all surprising if the Opposition pulled the plug on him.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
He is a menace. More boradly, though, the turning point will come when people look at the numbers that the Govt itself provides and says "why are we still doing this"? That's one reason, incidentally, why you shouldn't buy Contra's view of the world. Why would the Government be providing us with stats that we can use to form our own opinions (as misguided as they may be) if there was some overarching plot to leave us like this for as long as possible. Authoritarianism withers in the face of transparency.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
If I may say, I think you have lost your way of late on PB. Perhaps a consequence of you dipping in and out so your posts have only dealt with bits and bobs and not really delved into the meat of the issue. And who could blame you - better things to do I'm sure.
This post is an example of that, sadly.
A bit mean! I`m jumping to kinabalu`s defence on this.
Look, I think he has the makings of a very solid PB poster. But he needs to commit. I appreciate that he likely spends a lot of time on google so that he can keep up but I just feel these past few days he has drifted off. Perhaps it's a lockdown thing - can't really be bothered anymore. I have a great regard for him so please don't think I'm being mean at all.
On topic, I'm loathe to call the outcome of the election now, there's too many known unknowns.
We might have another pandemic, Brexit could turn out to be a success or a disaster mis-sold to the public.
I see more potential for conflicts around the world in which get dragged into.
China might test the resolve of the West by annexing Taiwan, or resolve their issues in Kashmir, which is just what the world needs, two or three nuclear armed powers slugging it out.
Then there's Hong Kong.
We also need to talk about Russia as well.
Historically speaking the 2024 will be when the Tories have been in continuous power for 14 years, that's the sort of time frame when governing parties start losing substantial seats.
Labour lost 48 seats net in 2005 and the Tories lost 40 seats net in 1992.
Philip Thompson's post Brexit, post pandemic economic boom will see the Conservatives to another landslide.
Johnson won't be Prime Minister by the next election.
Firstly, there are several factors pushing him to go. He's clearly not in good health; not only is he suffering from the long term impact of Covid-19 and ventilation, the physical and mental strain of being a world leader is pretty well documented. He has clear financial problems; not only has he had to give up his well-compensated role as a Telegraph columnist, he's got several children to support, including a newborn. He has clear personal problems; not only does he currently have a strained relationship with the mother of his newborn, he's got family members messing around and causing problems every other week, requiring his intervention. Once he stops being PM, he can resolve some or all of these problems. He can take some time to recuperate, he can go back to low-effort, high-pay jobs, he can spend more time trying to rebuild his relationship with Carrie, and no one really cares what the relatives of ex-PMs get up to.
For all his faults, Johnson also isn't stupid. He's acutely aware of history and how political careers tend to end in failure. The obvious comparison is with Churchill; after his role in winning WW2, Churchill was seen as a national hero, but his insistence on seeking a peacetime term, with no real ideas on what to do with it, was a mistake. I think Johnson won't want to repeat that mistake.
If he resigns in the summer, after the UK becomes one of the first major nations to vaccinate their adult populations and return to semi-normality, I think Johnson knows he goes down in history as an iconic Prime Minister. He's remembered as the man who successfully campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, negotiated our exit, led the UK through the worst global pandemic in modern times, and had his 'Victory over Covid' moment.
If he stays on, then he has to deal with the hangover of all this - the long, unpleasant years of spending cuts to pay for the Covid spending spree, boring negotiations with the EU over phytosanitary rules, and all his personal problems becoming more and more burdensome.
Every factor other than pure ego and a desire to cling on to the top job is pushing him to go. It's entirely possible that ego will win out, but my money is on him going before the end of the year.
This is a very lucid and compellingly constructed argument that could have easily been a header but I still think ego wins. There is simply nothing more to him than ego.
It is a very well argued and compelling argument from @Bournville. I think I am going to put some money on Johnson going in 2021.
Noooo! That's money lost. Even if he is not going to fight GE24 - which I think he will - the earliest he will leave is 2023.
Close to half a million including NI then. RRR should come tumbling down today.
Funny to think that this time last month many people were talking about potentially doing 200k per week.
Given the real target is 14.6m, we'll probably basically hit it by 10am tomorrow, even if it isn;t reported as such until Sunday.
Of course the target is just to offer a dose to everyone in 1-4 and that target has clearly been met - anyone not already vaccinated or booked in simply didn't want / made no effort to get one.
Once again, the real target is NOT 14.6 million. It is 15 million.
Although it is true that if you add up every cohort you reach 14.6 million, the NHS itself chose to use the 15 million number, thus that is the target.
That all said, it's all academic stuff reserved for pedanticbetting.com because it will surpass the 15 million anyway, possibly without needing the final counting day on Monday.
14.6m is 15m when rounded. The table in the official vaccine strategy says ~15m but the numbers add up to 14.6. It's pretty clear to anyone familiar with the rounding of numbers what the real target it. It's also clear to anyone with a grasp of reality how unimportant this distinction is given both will be easily hit, likely on the same day.
It was a stretch target, I believe. To get within 10% of it would have been a decent result. As it is I think we can be glad, and impressed.
Yep, if they had said the target was end of Feb everyone would have thought it was impressive - they stretched themselves and still hit.
More interesting question is why their new publically announced targets are massively unstretching - are they getting cocky, or is there bad news coming?
Second doses will be underway in earnest.
My wife's booked in for her second dose later this month. There will be millions of second doses over March and April.
Aptil sure, but if they're following their own dosing policy there shouldn't be more than 0.7m due before the last week of March, and on current trends they should therefore be able to complete all 1-9 on first doses by then. Either they are not following the 12 week policy, or they expect to be losing supply rather than ramping up.
Very odd given Oxford only delivered 3m doses in January so should be primed for a speed up very soon if their 100m are arriving even half as quick as claimed.
12 weeks is a limit not a target. My wife's second jab is 10 weeks after her first for what its worth, not sure how others will be scheduled.
Indeed, and I know others with similar time gaps. Does seem a little cautious at least for Oxford 2nd doses given what we know of the impact of lag on efficacy - perhaps 12 weeks should be a target and not a limit for them.
I think there's three good reasons for caution.
Better to under promise and over-deliver.
They had "sight" of February's deliveries. They won't have sight of March's deliveries yet. Some precaution here in case there's disruption is wise.
Some precaution in case they wish to tweak delivery schedule makes sense. EG first dose gives most of the protection but there's diminishing returns as you get through the priority groups. At what stage does priority ones second dose become more important than the next group in your lists first dose? Is it worth giving first doses to healthy 50 year olds before you've given the second dose to care homes?
3 is a very interesting point, but frankly given the speedy nature of the trials there's very little real data to go on. The Pfizer trial results show no obvious impact on the trend line from dose 2 - just very good immunity kicking in 12 days after dose 1 and then maintaining. Does the 2nd dose really up protection or just act as a booster to maintain it. Is this impact consistent by age group? Unfortunately not sure we'll have reliable answers in advance of when they would be useful. Fortunately that same speed means we'll all end up vaccinated so quickly that the ordering becomes of pretty limited impact. Indeed given the low levels of cases we're heading to, it may all be moot.
I'm sure PHE, the JCVI, the Care Commission etc are monitoring this.
If by February care home deaths are a thing of the past then move straight on to group 9. If however care home deaths and hospitalisations are a major issue then roll out the second jabs. I've just made that up but its the smart thing to do in my opinion and they've done the smart thing so far.
Better to at least give yourself the opportunity to do things like this. By saying April they've given themselves room to act is my guess.
Johnson won't be Prime Minister by the next election.
Firstly, there are several factors pushing him to go. He's clearly not in good health; not only is he suffering from the long term impact of Covid-19 and ventilation, the physical and mental strain of being a world leader is pretty well documented. He has clear financial problems; not only has he had to give up his well-compensated role as a Telegraph columnist, he's got several children to support, including a newborn. He has clear personal problems; not only does he currently have a strained relationship with the mother of his newborn, he's got family members messing around and causing problems every other week, requiring his intervention. Once he stops being PM, he can resolve some or all of these problems. He can take some time to recuperate, he can go back to low-effort, high-pay jobs, he can spend more time trying to rebuild his relationship with Carrie, and no one really cares what the relatives of ex-PMs get up to.
For all his faults, Johnson also isn't stupid. He's acutely aware of history and how political careers tend to end in failure. The obvious comparison is with Churchill; after his role in winning WW2, Churchill was seen as a national hero, but his insistence on seeking a peacetime term, with no real ideas on what to do with it, was a mistake. I think Johnson won't want to repeat that mistake.
If he resigns in the summer, after the UK becomes one of the first major nations to vaccinate their adult populations and return to semi-normality, I think Johnson knows he goes down in history as an iconic Prime Minister. He's remembered as the man who successfully campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, negotiated our exit, led the UK through the worst global pandemic in modern times, and had his 'Victory over Covid' moment.
If he stays on, then he has to deal with the hangover of all this - the long, unpleasant years of spending cuts to pay for the Covid spending spree, boring negotiations with the EU over phytosanitary rules, and all his personal problems becoming more and more burdensome.
Every factor other than pure ego and a desire to cling on to the top job is pushing him to go. It's entirely possible that ego will win out, but my money is on him going before the end of the year.
This is a very lucid and compellingly constructed argument that could have easily been a header but I still think ego wins. There is simply nothing more to him than ego.
It is a very well argued and compelling argument from @Bournville. I think I am going to put some money on Johnson going in 2021.
Noooo! That's money lost. Even if he is not going to fight GE24 - which I think he will - the earliest he will leave is 2023.
I get anti lockdown arguments and so forth, but the "questions" asked are 90+% (On twitter generally, not really here) absolute dropped on head as a child stuff.
As long as people are asking they can be as clumsy as they like tbh.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
OK Billy Bunters, 2nd Test starts tomorrow. We cleaned up last time and we can do the same again.
The wicket will be if anything drier and more baked than the adjacent pitch which yielded fourty wickets in a session and a half short of five days in the first Test. There is no rain forecast in an area where weather forecasting is a little easier than it is in this country. There is no way this match will result in a draw.
The toss will be vital again. The odds should be heavily in favor of whoever bats first. Betfair odds are: India 1.66 England 4.1 Draw 6.4 The draw is a gift but if you want to back England you will be getting terrific odds on the toss of a coin. India's odds can only be explained by 'heart ruling head' amongst Asian punters. They lost the first Test by 227 ffs and it was no fluke. England have made changes but I don't think the side is any the weaker for it. They may even be a shade stronger.
Starts 4am on Channel 4. Set your alarm and try not to miss the toss.
Cricinfo, which is pretty good on these things, reckons the pitch will take spin from day one. It will be a result pitch, That's perfectly legitimate and understandable, but if India lose the toss again I expect them to lose the match again.
I'd agree that a result is more likely than the draw. But five times more ?
I have put a couple of bob on England, and a bit more on the draw as a trading bet. FWIW.
Draws are pretty rare in Test match cricket these days unless the weather intervenes. It's set fair for Chennai and we have the advantage of knowing what kind of pitch to expect because it will only be a few strips down from the one they just played on. Although that one started as a great batting track, it was getting close to unplayable by the last afternoon - witness the delivery that took Kohli out.
There's every good reason to think tomorrow's pitch will be more difficult for the batsmen, not least because India need a result! I wouldn't back the draw at 10/1.
Mainly I've layed the draw but I've had a few quid on England too. If they win the toss, I expect them to win the game.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
Problem is, when the questioners consistently and obviously persist in coming out with obvious bollocks, it rather dents the entire case for ANYONE who wants to question it.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd postulate a false flag operation.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
So Carlotta you are saying that countries could have gone out and got vaccines regardless of their status of EU membership?
Vaccine anecdote update: my GP practice (which was one of the slower ones to begin vaccinations) has now announced that they'll be sending out invitations to Group 5 for appointments next week.
It seems to me that this programme is being rolled on the exact schedule, to an almost uncanny degree of accuracy.
Canada seems to have got particularly unlucky in the vaccine rollout given it's ordered absolubtely shitloads. Squeezed from all angles by other larger countries I think.
Yeah it's why I think Scott's assessment that Johnson's vaccine plan was a fluke as he claimed earlier was way off the mark.
Pumping money into domestic development and production of vaccines because you anticipate problems down the line is by no way a fluke. Canada has half the correct equation in that they have a good vaccine portfolio, but without any domestic production it's akin to having a Bentley but no engine in it, it's reliant on being towed by a horse.
I agree with the aim of this poster. Is it not outside the realms of possibility to produce a similar campaign showing the eyes of a 9 year-old child who has been denied school, denied mixing with their friends, denied their childhood and say "Refusing the vaccine? Look him in the eyes and tell him his childhood is lost forever."
Close to half a million including NI then. RRR should come tumbling down today.
Funny to think that this time last month many people were talking about potentially doing 200k per week.
Given the real target is 14.6m, we'll probably basically hit it by 10am tomorrow, even if it isn;t reported as such until Sunday.
Of course the target is just to offer a dose to everyone in 1-4 and that target has clearly been met - anyone not already vaccinated or booked in simply didn't want / made no effort to get one.
Once again, the real target is NOT 14.6 million. It is 15 million.
Although it is true that if you add up every cohort you reach 14.6 million, the NHS itself chose to use the 15 million number, thus that is the target.
That all said, it's all academic stuff reserved for pedanticbetting.com because it will surpass the 15 million anyway, possibly without needing the final counting day on Monday.
14.6m is 15m when rounded. The table in the official vaccine strategy says ~15m but the numbers add up to 14.6. It's pretty clear to anyone familiar with the rounding of numbers what the real target it. It's also clear to anyone with a grasp of reality how unimportant this distinction is given both will be easily hit, likely on the same day.
It was a stretch target, I believe. To get within 10% of it would have been a decent result. As it is I think we can be glad, and impressed.
Yep, if they had said the target was end of Feb everyone would have thought it was impressive - they stretched themselves and still hit.
More interesting question is why their new publically announced targets are massively unstretching - are they getting cocky, or is there bad news coming?
Second doses will be underway in earnest.
My wife's booked in for her second dose later this month. There will be millions of second doses over March and April.
Aptil sure, but if they're following their own dosing policy there shouldn't be more than 0.7m due before the last week of March, and on current trends they should therefore be able to complete all 1-9 on first doses by then. Either they are not following the 12 week policy, or they expect to be losing supply rather than ramping up.
Very odd given Oxford only delivered 3m doses in January so should be primed for a speed up very soon if their 100m are arriving even half as quick as claimed.
12 weeks is a limit not a target. My wife's second jab is 10 weeks after her first for what its worth, not sure how others will be scheduled.
Indeed, and I know others with similar time gaps. Does seem a little cautious at least for Oxford 2nd doses given what we know of the impact of lag on efficacy - perhaps 12 weeks should be a target and not a limit for them.
I think there's three good reasons for caution.
Better to under promise and over-deliver.
They had "sight" of February's deliveries. They won't have sight of March's deliveries yet. Some precaution here in case there's disruption is wise.
Some precaution in case they wish to tweak delivery schedule makes sense. EG first dose gives most of the protection but there's diminishing returns as you get through the priority groups. At what stage does priority ones second dose become more important than the next group in your lists first dose? Is it worth giving first doses to healthy 50 year olds before you've given the second dose to care homes?
3 is a very interesting point, but frankly given the speedy nature of the trials there's very little real data to go on. The Pfizer trial results show no obvious impact on the trend line from dose 2 - just very good immunity kicking in 12 days after dose 1 and then maintaining. Does the 2nd dose really up protection or just act as a booster to maintain it. Is this impact consistent by age group? Unfortunately not sure we'll have reliable answers in advance of when they would be useful. Fortunately that same speed means we'll all end up vaccinated so quickly that the ordering becomes of pretty limited impact. Indeed given the low levels of cases we're heading to, it may all be moot.
I'm sure PHE, the JCVI, the Care Commission etc are monitoring this.
If by February care home deaths are a thing of the past then move straight on to group 9. If however care home deaths and hospitalisations are a major issue then roll out the second jabs. I've just made that up but its the smart thing to do in my opinion and they've done the smart thing so far.
Better to at least give yourself the opportunity to do things like this. By saying April they've given themselves room to act is my guess.
Hopefully so. As long as we are maintaining 3m doses a week of capacity, then with cases falling so fast, warmer weather round the corner, and the government showing very little sign of wanting to move as quickly as it arguably could, it does feel like the choices on tiers and ordering won't make more than a month or 2s difference to anyone, in an environment with extremely low cases, and so whatever they choose will end up with death figures pretty close to just allocating doses alphabetically.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
So Carlotta you are saying that countries could have gone out and got vaccines regardless of their status of EU membership?
Vaccine anecdote update: my GP practice (which was one of the slower ones to begin vaccinations) has now announced that they'll be sending out invitations to Group 5 for appointments next week.
It seems to me that this programme is being rolled on the exact schedule, to an almost uncanny degree of accuracy.
Almost like the whole thing is a government hoax to control the population and we're now being injected with saline as the next phase in the choreographed game.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
He is a menace. More boradly, though, the turning point will come when people look at the numbers that the Govt itself provides and says "why are we still doing this"? That's one reason, incidentally, why you shouldn't buy Contra's view of the world. Why would the Government be providing us with stats that we can use to form our own opinions (as misguided as they may be) if there was some overarching plot to leave us like this for as long as possible. Authoritarianism withers in the face of transparency.
@contra's point is that without pressure to look at the numbers and the associated issues (economic, mental health, education, etc) then there would be a temptation for the government to take its time.
If everyone was like PB the numbers would be incidental and the govt could continue to listen to the medics and scientists who would form policy.
It is no stretch to think that a possible sequence of events could be: numbers low, every right (small r)-thinking person says well that's it we've got it cracked, out of lockdown we come, then the CMO says we can't come out of lockdown because we need to be sure the numbers won't rise again.
And that means an open-ended lockdown. With only maybe Rishi as a voice against.
Why? Just because the govt and the country would have become used to following the science.
Canada has been dragged into the EU's vaccine chaos with Pfizer and Moderna both cutting back deliveries from Europe while Brussels goes to war on jab exports to rescue its own stumbling vaccine roll-out.
With no home-grown vaccines in Canada and no jabs being shipped from the United States, the country is reliant on factories in Europe to supply the doses.
But Moderna's next shipment will be one-third smaller than expected - with only 168,000 jabs arriving instead of 250,000 - while Pfizer deliveries have seen a month-long slowdown because of delays at a manufacturing plant in Belgium.
A Canadian government source told the Toronto Star that the EU's new checks had hampered the delivery of Moderna supplies to countries such as Canada.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
So Carlotta you are saying that countries could have gone out and got vaccines regardless of their status of EU membership?
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
So Carlotta you are saying that countries could have gone out and got vaccines regardless of their status of EU membership?
Germany did.
So how come the EU is the baddy? They just turned out to be useless at vaccine procurement.
As with everything else, membership of the EU was incidental to the real issue.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
If I may say, I think you have lost your way of late on PB. Perhaps a consequence of you dipping in and out so your posts have only dealt with bits and bobs and not really delved into the meat of the issue. And who could blame you - better things to do I'm sure.
This post is an example of that, sadly.
Suggest you take the point onboard rather than resorting to oblique putdown. Either your text processing powers or your standards require improvement. Lies and misinformation should be called out. It's tosh to conflate this with groupthink.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
I agree with the aim of this poster. Is it not outside the realms of possibility to produce a similar campaign showing the eyes of a 9 year-old child who has been denied school, denied mixing with their friends, denied their childhood and say "Refusing the vaccine? Look him in the eyes and tell him his childhood is lost forever."
There are plenty of people, with happy families, for whom this has been a pretty good year. There are lots of others, less likely to be represented at the top levels of decision making, for whom this has been to all intents and purposes a lost year of life, setting aside any longer term impacts. I still don't believe our approach will be seen as proportionate in hindsight when emotional distance is reached.
Canada seems to have got particularly unlucky in the vaccine rollout given it's ordered absolubtely shitloads. Squeezed from all angles by other larger countries I think.
Yeah it's why I think Scott's assessment that Johnson's vaccine plan was a fluke as he claimed earlier was way off the mark.
Pumping money into domestic development and production of vaccines because you anticipate problems down the line is by no way a fluke. Canada has half the correct equation in that they have a good vaccine portfolio, but without any domestic production it's akin to having a Bentley but no engine in it, it's reliant on being towed by a horse.
Scott's a one trick pony - or should we say a one prick pony?
This should set the cat amongst the pigeons - although frankly I think we have had a big wave of infections already. Ferguson et al predicted 500,000 deaths with no interventions, we going to get to a third of that, maybe even half.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
We have to hope that thing improve drastically in France. A 43% refusal rate, if people actually follow through on it, will cripple their attempts to stamp on Covid and probably result in the country being stuck in a cycle of lockdowns. It'll also leave a mutant disease breeding reactor steaming away in one of our neighbours.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
If I may say, I think you have lost your way of late on PB. Perhaps a consequence of you dipping in and out so your posts have only dealt with bits and bobs and not really delved into the meat of the issue. And who could blame you - better things to do I'm sure.
This post is an example of that, sadly.
Suggest you take the point onboard rather than resorting to oblique putdown. Either your text processing powers or your standards require improvement. Lies and misinformation should be called out. It's tosh to conflate this with groupthink.
You're a bit like the Tories who say that the next Lab leader should be more like a Tory.
People who are contrarian or pushing a line you don't like should be more like you would like them to be.
This should set the cat amongst the pigeons - although frankly I think we have had a big wave of infections already. Ferguson et al predicted 500,000 deaths with no interventions, we going to get to a third of that, maybe even half.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
So Carlotta you are saying that countries could have gone out and got vaccines regardless of their status of EU membership?
Germany did.
So how come the EU is the baddy? They just turned out to be useless at vaccine procurement.
As with everything else, membership of the EU was incidental to the real issue.
Many things are possible whilst also facing pressure to not do those things. The EU prizes solidarity so highly it may well be difficult for some to take alternative actions. So I dont agree its incidental when the EC is saying the approach was right as that is relevant.
They might well still consider it the right approach even with the issues, but if presented two options and I'm very strongly told I should pick one of them it's not incidental.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
This should set the cat amongst the pigeons - although frankly I think we have had a big wave of infections already. Ferguson et al predicted 500,000 deaths with no interventions, we going to get to a third of that, maybe even half.
Isn't the issue from what we now know about COVID (and how it appears to be mutating) that although most 20-30 year olds are fairly safe, if you allow millions of them to get it, it massively increases the chance of further significant mutations, which may well be vaccine resistant.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
He is a menace. More boradly, though, the turning point will come when people look at the numbers that the Govt itself provides and says "why are we still doing this"? That's one reason, incidentally, why you shouldn't buy Contra's view of the world. Why would the Government be providing us with stats that we can use to form our own opinions (as misguided as they may be) if there was some overarching plot to leave us like this for as long as possible. Authoritarianism withers in the face of transparency.
@contra's point is that without pressure to look at the numbers and the associated issues (economic, mental health, education, etc) then there would be a temptation for the government to take its time.
If everyone was like PB the numbers would be incidental and the govt could continue to listen to the medics and scientists who would form policy.
It is no stretch to think that a possible sequence of events could be: numbers low, every right (small r)-thinking person says well that's it we've got it cracked, out of lockdown we come, then the CMO says we can't come out of lockdown because we need to be sure the numbers won't rise again.
And that means an open-ended lockdown. With only maybe Rishi as a voice against.
Why? Just because the govt and the country would have become used to following the science.
If I was a fan of an open-ended lockdown and I wanted utter overcaution or I got a kick out of having people locked down, I'd want the voices on the other side to be coming out with incoherent and dishonest crap. So easy to ignore or sideline the Piers Corbyns, or the Ivor Cummins of this world.
The thing that makes it all dangerous is that some people who are so desperate to deny the reality of the situation actually believe the bollocks. Which is why we had people invading hospitals "to show the truth of their emptiness" or demonstrating outside of them, or holding covid parties, and so on. Hell, Yeadon and a couple of the others that Young was hosting was actively publicising dishonest antivaxxer crap, and that's outright dangerous in itself.
If it wasn't for that, I could simply dismiss them as pathetic deniers who can't come to terms with a crisis and I'd be all in favour of them doing whatever it takes as a coping mechanism.
This should set the cat amongst the pigeons - although frankly I think we have had a big wave of infections already. Ferguson et al predicted 500,000 deaths with no interventions, we going to get to a third of that, maybe even half.
Indeed, at least for the South that wave has come and gone. After being top of the table for cases Kent is now below national average and still falling quicker than nearly anywhere else. The north is stagnating at higher levels as they missed the 3rd wave to some extent.
Johnson won't be Prime Minister by the next election.
Firstly, there are several factors pushing him to go. He's clearly not in good health; not only is he suffering from the long term impact of Covid-19 and ventilation, the physical and mental strain of being a world leader is pretty well documented. He has clear financial problems; not only has he had to give up his well-compensated role as a Telegraph columnist, he's got several children to support, including a newborn. He has clear personal problems; not only does he currently have a strained relationship with the mother of his newborn, he's got family members messing around and causing problems every other week, requiring his intervention. Once he stops being PM, he can resolve some or all of these problems. He can take some time to recuperate, he can go back to low-effort, high-pay jobs, he can spend more time trying to rebuild his relationship with Carrie, and no one really cares what the relatives of ex-PMs get up to.
For all his faults, Johnson also isn't stupid. He's acutely aware of history and how political careers tend to end in failure. The obvious comparison is with Churchill; after his role in winning WW2, Churchill was seen as a national hero, but his insistence on seeking a peacetime term, with no real ideas on what to do with it, was a mistake. I think Johnson won't want to repeat that mistake.
If he resigns in the summer, after the UK becomes one of the first major nations to vaccinate their adult populations and return to semi-normality, I think Johnson knows he goes down in history as an iconic Prime Minister. He's remembered as the man who successfully campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, negotiated our exit, led the UK through the worst global pandemic in modern times, and had his 'Victory over Covid' moment.
If he stays on, then he has to deal with the hangover of all this - the long, unpleasant years of spending cuts to pay for the Covid spending spree, boring negotiations with the EU over phytosanitary rules, and all his personal problems becoming more and more burdensome.
Every factor other than pure ego and a desire to cling on to the top job is pushing him to go. It's entirely possible that ego will win out, but my money is on him going before the end of the year.
This is a very lucid and compellingly constructed argument that could have easily been a header but I still think ego wins. There is simply nothing more to him than ego.
It is a very well argued and compelling argument from @Bournville. I think I am going to put some money on Johnson going in 2021.
Join the club - I am on him to leave any time until September this year but I think @Dura has it also - ego. He simply will not step down while he is in power. As indeed has no other PM done.
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Andrew Bonner-Law? James Ramsey McDonald? Stanley Baldwin? Neville Chamberlain? Sir Winston Churchill? Sir Anthony Eden? Harold Macmillan? Harold Wilson? Margaret Thatcher? Tony Blair?
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
So Carlotta you are saying that countries could have gone out and got vaccines regardless of their status of EU membership?
Germany did.
So how come the EU is the baddy? They just turned out to be useless at vaccine procurement.
As with everything else, membership of the EU was incidental to the real issue.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
Problem is, when the questioners consistently and obviously persist in coming out with obvious bollocks, it rather dents the entire case for ANYONE who wants to question it.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd postulate a false flag operation.
The regular utter bullshit spouted by Contrarian types certainly colours any sceptical analysis by saner people.
Contrarian: just once I’d like you to put some numbers behind your assertions & justify the positions you take instead of this "Just Asking Questions" bollocks. Go on, you can do it. I’ll cheer from the sidelines.
Johnson won't be Prime Minister by the next election.
Firstly, there are several factors pushing him to go. He's clearly not in good health; not only is he suffering from the long term impact of Covid-19 and ventilation, the physical and mental strain of being a world leader is pretty well documented. He has clear financial problems; not only has he had to give up his well-compensated role as a Telegraph columnist, he's got several children to support, including a newborn. He has clear personal problems; not only does he currently have a strained relationship with the mother of his newborn, he's got family members messing around and causing problems every other week, requiring his intervention. Once he stops being PM, he can resolve some or all of these problems. He can take some time to recuperate, he can go back to low-effort, high-pay jobs, he can spend more time trying to rebuild his relationship with Carrie, and no one really cares what the relatives of ex-PMs get up to.
For all his faults, Johnson also isn't stupid. He's acutely aware of history and how political careers tend to end in failure. The obvious comparison is with Churchill; after his role in winning WW2, Churchill was seen as a national hero, but his insistence on seeking a peacetime term, with no real ideas on what to do with it, was a mistake. I think Johnson won't want to repeat that mistake.
If he resigns in the summer, after the UK becomes one of the first major nations to vaccinate their adult populations and return to semi-normality, I think Johnson knows he goes down in history as an iconic Prime Minister. He's remembered as the man who successfully campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, negotiated our exit, led the UK through the worst global pandemic in modern times, and had his 'Victory over Covid' moment.
If he stays on, then he has to deal with the hangover of all this - the long, unpleasant years of spending cuts to pay for the Covid spending spree, boring negotiations with the EU over phytosanitary rules, and all his personal problems becoming more and more burdensome.
Every factor other than pure ego and a desire to cling on to the top job is pushing him to go. It's entirely possible that ego will win out, but my money is on him going before the end of the year.
Of course that's a possible outcome, but I'd be fairly surprised if Boris goes anywhere in the near future. He was happy to gamble on a snap election when a defeat would have made him one of the greatest failures in Prime Ministerial history and humiliated him for life because he didn't just want the title, but the power and the reality.
Now he can afford to lose 50 seats even without taking the boundary changes into account - ('You can always do a deal with an Ulsterman' - Ken Clarke) - and still win a fifth consecutive term for the Conservatives, elevating himself from an already significant PM to the ranks of the Thatchers and the Blairs. Unless some kind of force majeure intervenes, few PMs would pass up that kind of opportunity.
This should set the cat amongst the pigeons - although frankly I think we have had a big wave of infections already. Ferguson et al predicted 500,000 deaths with no interventions, we going to get to a third of that, maybe even half.
Ferguson has actually been saying quite encouraging things about the pandemic just recently. He counsels caution, not the sort of freedom festival with fireworks that Mark Harper and company might like, but by no means the masks until the end of time attitude of some of the more extreme boffins.
The scientist whose data modelling led to the first UK lockdown has expressed hope that the current lockdown could be the last.
Prof Neil Ferguson, who advises the government as part of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats advisory group (Nervtag), said the nation was “in a better place than I might have anticipated a month ago”.
...
Ferguson said that if the situation played out according to the best estimates, much of England could be in the equivalent of tier 2 measures by May, and areas with very low incidence in tier 1.
He said the UK was starting to enter a phase where a large proportion of the population were immune to the virus. He estimated that up to one-third of the population could have been infected, and that added to that number were the people who had received the Covid jab. He said the vaccine coverage among the over-70s was “better than I could have hoped for”.
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
He is a menace. More boradly, though, the turning point will come when people look at the numbers that the Govt itself provides and says "why are we still doing this"? That's one reason, incidentally, why you shouldn't buy Contra's view of the world. Why would the Government be providing us with stats that we can use to form our own opinions (as misguided as they may be) if there was some overarching plot to leave us like this for as long as possible. Authoritarianism withers in the face of transparency.
Exactly. But according to TOPPING and Mr Ed, calling that crap out is bad and dangerous because it's stamping on a brave and important minority view! I mean, c'mon. What's bad and dangerous would be not stamping all over it.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
So Carlotta you are saying that countries could have gone out and got vaccines regardless of their status of EU membership?
Germany did.
So how come the EU is the baddy? They just turned out to be useless at vaccine procurement.
As with everything else, membership of the EU was incidental to the real issue.
Many things are possible whilst also facing pressure to not do those things. The EU prizes solidarity so highly it may well be difficult for some to take alternative actions. So I dont agree its incidental when the EC is saying the approach was right as that is relevant.
They might well still consider it the right approach even with the issues, but if presented two options and I'm very strongly told I should pick one of them it's not incidental.
Hmm. The mighty Malta UK would not have been able to plough its own furrow?
This should set the cat amongst the pigeons - although frankly I think we have had a big wave of infections already. Ferguson et al predicted 500,000 deaths with no interventions, we going to get to a third of that, maybe even half.
Indeed, at least for the South that wave has come and gone. After being top of the table for cases Kent is now below national average and still falling quicker than nearly anywhere else. The north is stagnating at higher levels as they missed the 3rd wave to some extent.
The sharpest fall in cases nationally has been in Folkestone, which also has the highest per capita death rate of any district in the country. I know people are sceptical but I don't think it is unreasonable to postulate a degree of herd immunity.
Johnson won't be Prime Minister by the next election.
Firstly, there are several factors pushing him to go. He's clearly not in good health; not only is he suffering from the long term impact of Covid-19 and ventilation, the physical and mental strain of being a world leader is pretty well documented. He has clear financial problems; not only has he had to give up his well-compensated role as a Telegraph columnist, he's got several children to support, including a newborn. He has clear personal problems; not only does he currently have a strained relationship with the mother of his newborn, he's got family members messing around and causing problems every other week, requiring his intervention. Once he stops being PM, he can resolve some or all of these problems. He can take some time to recuperate, he can go back to low-effort, high-pay jobs, he can spend more time trying to rebuild his relationship with Carrie, and no one really cares what the relatives of ex-PMs get up to.
For all his faults, Johnson also isn't stupid. He's acutely aware of history and how political careers tend to end in failure. The obvious comparison is with Churchill; after his role in winning WW2, Churchill was seen as a national hero, but his insistence on seeking a peacetime term, with no real ideas on what to do with it, was a mistake. I think Johnson won't want to repeat that mistake.
If he resigns in the summer, after the UK becomes one of the first major nations to vaccinate their adult populations and return to semi-normality, I think Johnson knows he goes down in history as an iconic Prime Minister. He's remembered as the man who successfully campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, negotiated our exit, led the UK through the worst global pandemic in modern times, and had his 'Victory over Covid' moment.
If he stays on, then he has to deal with the hangover of all this - the long, unpleasant years of spending cuts to pay for the Covid spending spree, boring negotiations with the EU over phytosanitary rules, and all his personal problems becoming more and more burdensome.
Every factor other than pure ego and a desire to cling on to the top job is pushing him to go. It's entirely possible that ego will win out, but my money is on him going before the end of the year.
This is a very lucid and compellingly constructed argument that could have easily been a header but I still think ego wins. There is simply nothing more to him than ego.
It is a very well argued and compelling argument from @Bournville. I think I am going to put some money on Johnson going in 2021.
Join the club - I am on him to leave any time until September this year but I think @Dura has it also - ego. He simply will not step down while he is in power. As indeed has no other PM done.
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Andrew Bonner-Law? James Ramsey McDonald? Stanley Baldwin? Neville Chamberlain? Sir Winston Churchill? Sir Anthony Eden? Harold Macmillan? Harold Wilson? Margaret Thatcher? Tony Blair?
Yeah but apart from them?
As for those in my living memory they were all more or less forced to go. Who is calling for BoJo to go now? Apart from me via my bf account.
Builders at a £1billion palace allegedly owned by Russian President Vladimir Putin have confirmed the once-opulent home is riddled with mould and in a constant state of disrepair.
That would imply a more effective suppression of the virus than in Lockdown 1.0, even though we're now in Winter and the rules are slightly less severe.
Is there any other plausible explanation that we can think of besides the effect of mass vaccination feeding through into the figures?
Its 4 weeks since my dad has his jab (Pfizer) and 2 weeks since my mum had hers (AZ). Hopefully they would both be okay now even if they got the virus.
Neil Ferguson and Susan Michie will be along later to tell you why its NOT OK.
Why are you like this contrarian?
The published evidence is pretty clear - after the first jab it takes around two weeks before you see signs of immunity showing up in the data, and after three weeks it’s overwhelmingly obvious. If I was in your Mum’s position Andy_JS I’d personally give it another week to be sure, but your Dad should be pretty safe.
If we got variants spreading widely that these vaccines offered no protection at all against, then that calculus might change in the future.
I am like this because I believe I have sacrificed quite enough, in terms of my liberty, my mental well being and in the near future probably quite large amounts of my hard earned cash. And for what?
Even before the pandemic struck, the most long lived and most prosperous generation in history.
Young people have sacrificed far, far more than enough. Far more. As will soon be very apparent.
Irish joke: Paddy and Liam are trying to get a horse under a bridge, but the bridge is just too low. Liam: We could take his shoes off. Paddy: But it's not his feet that don't fit, it's his ears.
Almost impossible to believe that after a year of this you still don't see the fallacy in this most long lived and most prosperous generation in history stuff.
Come forward and name a generation that has fared better. You can't, because there isn't.
That is not where the fallacy is.
So you admit the boomer generation had it the best ever. Good. The choice, given the nature of covid, was to at least keep our children in school so maybe some more very sick boomers died. Or maybe didn't, who knows.
Epic point missing.
No point spending time on this, but you do realise there is nothing uniquely age-specific about covid? It kills the same age groups in the same proportions as - for starters - flu, cancer, heart disease and pneumonia. What do you think the knock-on effects on the younger-than-boomers would be if you let the disease run unchecked? You only take the "boomers" out of the picture if you not only take no steps to prevent them getting the disease but also deny them hospital care when they get it. Is that what you are proposing?
Please do not pretend that the rationing of healthcare did not exist before covid, when it manifestly did and always has done. The idea that doctors were suddenly faced with difficult decisions after decades of plenty is completely false.
I accept healthcare would have been rationed more thinly than it even was at the height of covid, and perhaps some more people (of an average age of 80) might have died.
But out children would have stayed in school. Its not we would have sent a a quarter of a million 20-year olds over the top at the Somme.
Anyone think he'll shut up when the kids go back to school if lockdown continues? Or is the "Will nobody think of the children?" just an excuse to keep whining about lockdown.
It is absolutely justified for people, whether they be Mark Harper, David Blunkett, Julia Hartley-Brewer, god help us, or our very own @contrarian, to question and continue to question the reasons for lockdown.
The government has taken away a significant amount of our freedom and gets to determine who we are and are not allowed to have sex with and where.
That to my mind, and whatever the justification, does not just get a nod through. It may be, and as we have seen with the case numbers, and the trolleys in corridors of national health services very very probably is, absolutely justified. But not automatically because some scientists say so.
Wonderful as PB is, full as it is of questioning, thoughtful, intellectually demanding folk, the complete and whole falling in behind the government on this, while seeking to ostracise those who dissent, I find strange, perhaps disturbing.
That is bollocks as regards Contra. He spews lies and misinformation on this. The near 100% kickback is for that reason. You should join it.
He is a menace. More boradly, though, the turning point will come when people look at the numbers that the Govt itself provides and says "why are we still doing this"? That's one reason, incidentally, why you shouldn't buy Contra's view of the world. Why would the Government be providing us with stats that we can use to form our own opinions (as misguided as they may be) if there was some overarching plot to leave us like this for as long as possible. Authoritarianism withers in the face of transparency.
@contra's point is that without pressure to look at the numbers and the associated issues (economic, mental health, education, etc) then there would be a temptation for the government to take its time.
If everyone was like PB the numbers would be incidental and the govt could continue to listen to the medics and scientists who would form policy.
It is no stretch to think that a possible sequence of events could be: numbers low, every right (small r)-thinking person says well that's it we've got it cracked, out of lockdown we come, then the CMO says we can't come out of lockdown because we need to be sure the numbers won't rise again.
And that means an open-ended lockdown. With only maybe Rishi as a voice against.
Why? Just because the govt and the country would have become used to following the science.
'The science' should include economics (even if it is the dismal science ). If economics is not being taken into account then this is being very badly managed. Of course, there are big economic impacts of not locking down too (people self-lockdown if it gets bad enough) so it's not as if one is definitely pulling in the opposite direction to the other.
Vaccine anecdote update: my GP practice (which was one of the slower ones to begin vaccinations) has now announced that they'll be sending out invitations to Group 5 for appointments next week.
It seems to me that this programme is being rolled on the exact schedule, to an almost uncanny degree of accuracy.
It's weird. Given the record to date you constantly wait for the other shoe to fall and everything to go pear shaped but not a bit of it. Remarkable.
This should set the cat amongst the pigeons - although frankly I think we have had a big wave of infections already. Ferguson et al predicted 500,000 deaths with no interventions, we going to get to a third of that, maybe even half.
Indeed, at least for the South that wave has come and gone. After being top of the table for cases Kent is now below national average and still falling quicker than nearly anywhere else. The north is stagnating at higher levels as they missed the 3rd wave to some extent.
The infection figures go along with my theory that the new mutations infect quickly then disappear quickly.
That would imply a more effective suppression of the virus than in Lockdown 1.0, even though we're now in Winter and the rules are slightly less severe.
Is there any other plausible explanation that we can think of besides the effect of mass vaccination feeding through into the figures?
Vaccination and post infection immunity given R is lowest in areas which had the Kent varient big time.
This should set the cat amongst the pigeons - although frankly I think we have had a big wave of infections already. Ferguson et al predicted 500,000 deaths with no interventions, we going to get to a third of that, maybe even half.
Ferguson has actually been saying quite encouraging things about the pandemic just recently. He counsels caution, not the sort of freedom festival with fireworks that Mark Harper and company might like, but by no means the masks until the end of time attitude of some of the more extreme boffins.
The scientist whose data modelling led to the first UK lockdown has expressed hope that the current lockdown could be the last.
Prof Neil Ferguson, who advises the government as part of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats advisory group (Nervtag), said the nation was “in a better place than I might have anticipated a month ago”.
...
Ferguson said that if the situation played out according to the best estimates, much of England could be in the equivalent of tier 2 measures by May, and areas with very low incidence in tier 1.
He said the UK was starting to enter a phase where a large proportion of the population were immune to the virus. He estimated that up to one-third of the population could have been infected, and that added to that number were the people who had received the Covid jab. He said the vaccine coverage among the over-70s was “better than I could have hoped for”.
Then answer me this. How come the European country which is furthest ahead of all the other EU members is tiny Malta which went out and procured vaccines on its own?
That would imply a more effective suppression of the virus than in Lockdown 1.0, even though we're now in Winter and the rules are slightly less severe.
Is there any other plausible explanation that we can think of besides the effect of mass vaccination feeding through into the figures?
Builders at a £1billion palace allegedly owned by Russian President Vladimir Putin have confirmed the once-opulent home is riddled with mould and in a constant state of disrepair.
This should set the cat amongst the pigeons - although frankly I think we have had a big wave of infections already. Ferguson et al predicted 500,000 deaths with no interventions, we going to get to a third of that, maybe even half.
Isn't the issue from what we now know about COVID (and how it appears to be mutating) that although most 20-30 year olds are fairly safe, if you allow millions of them to get it, it massively increases the chance of further significant mutations, which may well be vaccine resistant.
There's that to be considered, the pressure on the hospitals if enough of them get ill at once and quite a lot of Long Covid cases, in addition to some avoidable deaths.
If it was going to take years to get through the younger age groups it would be a different matter, but as it is the risk of letting the virus rip just isn't worth it. A cautious programme of lockdown release would appear prudent, and all the mood music suggests that this is what the Government has in mind.
Comments
That day will, I predict, be long overdue - delayed because of some people, including opposition politicians and some in the media, who have an interest in maximising damage not minimising it.
But five times more ?
I have put a couple of bob on England, and a bit more on the draw as a trading bet. FWIW.
(Sucks egg)
As we saw from previous figures, Scotland had more unused vaccines, which was more than likely a function of concentrating on care homes first and now they are now using all of these (which is obviously great). We saw the same with Wales, they had an initial policy to reserve Pfizer jabs for later, but then changed course.
As I have long said, all that matters is hospitalisations. Once that is low (enough) then all the restrictions can legitimately be reviewed.
There were also people were also desperate for the "true" figure to be around 80% to match England. Which also didn't pass the sniff test because that would mean in the middle of pandemic that had sliced through care homes occupancy would have had to have risen by a net 18% in the last year.
A good start.
This post is an example of that, sadly.
Trudeau is a fuck-up who's now lost his Commons majority and has stumbled through a series of scandals (two or three corruption inquiries and the blackface business on top of that.) Once Canada is finally out of the worst of the pandemic it would not be at all surprising if the Opposition pulled the plug on him.
https://twitter.com/IpsosMORI/status/1360226048072445952?s=20
https://twitter.com/JamesAALongman/status/1360183011086643200?s=20
If by February care home deaths are a thing of the past then move straight on to group 9. If however care home deaths and hospitalisations are a major issue then roll out the second jabs. I've just made that up but its the smart thing to do in my opinion and they've done the smart thing so far.
Better to at least give yourself the opportunity to do things like this. By saying April they've given themselves room to act is my guess.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1360182356993323009?s=20
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1360193429616152580?s=20
There's every good reason to think tomorrow's pitch will be more difficult for the batsmen, not least because India need a result! I wouldn't back the draw at 10/1.
Mainly I've layed the draw but I've had a few quid on England too. If they win the toss, I expect them to win the game.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd postulate a false flag operation.
It seems to me that this programme is being rolled on the exact schedule, to an almost uncanny degree of accuracy.
Pumping money into domestic development and production of vaccines because you anticipate problems down the line is by no way a fluke. Canada has half the correct equation in that they have a good vaccine portfolio, but without any domestic production it's akin to having a Bentley but no engine in it, it's reliant on being towed by a horse.
I agree with the aim of this poster. Is it not outside the realms of possibility to produce a similar campaign showing the eyes of a 9 year-old child who has been denied school, denied mixing with their friends, denied their childhood and say "Refusing the vaccine? Look him in the eyes and tell him his childhood is lost forever."
<-/joke>
If everyone was like PB the numbers would be incidental and the govt could continue to listen to the medics and scientists who would form policy.
It is no stretch to think that a possible sequence of events could be: numbers low, every right (small r)-thinking person says well that's it we've got it cracked, out of lockdown we come, then the CMO says we can't come out of lockdown because we need to be sure the numbers won't rise again.
And that means an open-ended lockdown. With only maybe Rishi as a voice against.
Why? Just because the govt and the country would have become used to following the science.
As with everything else, membership of the EU was incidental to the real issue.
https://twitter.com/Simmons__/status/1359965557005709313
This is scandalous.
This is orders of magnitude worse than when the Tory twitter account renamed itself Fact Check UK which the SNP rightly called out.
This is messing with the integrity of the (postal) vote.
Loath meaning unwilling is without the e.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1360181880319078403
People who are contrarian or pushing a line you don't like should be more like you would like them to be.
Is that it?
https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1360246757066735616
They might well still consider it the right approach even with the issues, but if presented two options and I'm very strongly told I should pick one of them it's not incidental.
loathe is the verb (as per screenshot) so you can loathe, but cannot be loathe, only loath
The thing that makes it all dangerous is that some people who are so desperate to deny the reality of the situation actually believe the bollocks. Which is why we had people invading hospitals "to show the truth of their emptiness" or demonstrating outside of them, or holding covid parties, and so on.
Hell, Yeadon and a couple of the others that Young was hosting was actively publicising dishonest antivaxxer crap, and that's outright dangerous in itself.
If it wasn't for that, I could simply dismiss them as pathetic deniers who can't come to terms with a crisis and I'd be all in favour of them doing whatever it takes as a coping mechanism.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/umfrage-ansehen-der-eu-leidet-massiv-wegen-impfstoffbeschaffung-a-06324c7a-b3be-4284-b226-3382756eb394
Contrarian: just once I’d like you to put some numbers behind your assertions & justify the positions you take instead of this "Just Asking Questions" bollocks. Go on, you can do it. I’ll cheer from the sidelines.
Now he can afford to lose 50 seats even without taking the boundary changes into account - ('You can always do a deal with an Ulsterman' - Ken Clarke) - and still win a fifth consecutive term for the Conservatives, elevating himself from an already significant PM to the ranks of the Thatchers and the Blairs. Unless some kind of force majeure intervenes, few PMs would pass up that kind of opportunity.
The scientist whose data modelling led to the first UK lockdown has expressed hope that the current lockdown could be the last.
Prof Neil Ferguson, who advises the government as part of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats advisory group (Nervtag), said the nation was “in a better place than I might have anticipated a month ago”.
...
Ferguson said that if the situation played out according to the best estimates, much of England could be in the equivalent of tier 2 measures by May, and areas with very low incidence in tier 1.
He said the UK was starting to enter a phase where a large proportion of the population were immune to the virus. He estimated that up to one-third of the population could have been infected, and that added to that number were the people who had received the Covid jab. He said the vaccine coverage among the over-70s was “better than I could have hoped for”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/12/englands-current-lockdown-could-be-the-last-says-neil-ferguson
MaltaUK would not have been able to plough its own furrow?https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/loathe
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/loath
As for those in my living memory they were all more or less forced to go. Who is calling for BoJo to go now? Apart from me via my bf account.
Builders at a £1billion palace allegedly owned by Russian President Vladimir Putin have confirmed the once-opulent home is riddled with mould and in a constant state of disrepair.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9253565/Builders-Putins-1billion-palace-confirm-home-riddled-mould.html
Is there any other plausible explanation that we can think of besides the effect of mass vaccination feeding through into the figures?
ETA BBC link to the mouldy Putin palace story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56007943
If it was going to take years to get through the younger age groups it would be a different matter, but as it is the risk of letting the virus rip just isn't worth it. A cautious programme of lockdown release would appear prudent, and all the mood music suggests that this is what the Government has in mind.