Personally speaking, there is an air - literally - of optimism in north London tonight.
Today it was occasionally sunny and 13C at peak. Even now it is 9C, dry and mild: a pleasant, fresh, very walkable evening. This feels like spring, and it probably is (the forecast next week is for 18C and sun!)
We are, at least in the south of England. over the hump of winter. For sure it will come back and have another bite, but winter is beaten.
It's difficult to know how this will affect us psychologically. If we get an amazing, sunny spring like last year - unlikely, but not impossible - the pressure to unlock will be intense, as cases and deaths fall off a cliff. If they don't open the pubs, the parks will become ad hoc beer gardens, anyway. Tricky.
Was above freezing up here today. After a week of bitter, painful cold, and a week of continuous, and I mean continuous, precipitation the week before, it was actually pleasant to be outside. I, too, detected an air of optimism. Or at the very least a lifting of the literal and metaphorical depression.
Yes, for the last two weeks I have felt trapped twice over: by the plague (hideously, of course) but also by the weather. You couldn't even do your allowed walk in the park - with a friend, or alone - because it was so rainy, cold, freezing, snowy, you might fall over and break an ankle (meaning a visit to a hospital, and thus a huge risk of Covid) or you just got cold, wet, and miserable: what's the point.
For me it was one of the nadirs. I felt the general Covid depression deepen. Nothing terrible. not suicidal. But the bleakness intensified.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
The source I'm relying on in this case does not suggest that the Falklands are underway just yet, but does indicate that most of the overseas territories and all of the crown dependencies are. Indeed, it is possible that some of them (the British Virgin Islands are another example) just haven't got around to reporting any numbers yet.
Gibraltar, the Caymans, the Turks & Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey and the Isle of Man are all currently running ahead of the United States in per capita terms.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
Exactly, and serious cases doesn't necessarily mean hospitalisation. Over here those are two separate definitions.
With 53m vaccinated twice by the middle of July or earlier we can't live in fear of what might happen. We have to live normally and use our CureVac deal to get ahead of the mutations. Ideally the AZ trial for over 6s comes through for us and we further reduce any potential source of infections.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
"Good"?
Those numbers are extraordinary. Maccabi has jabbed more than 5% of the Israeli population, with a definite skew towards the older and the medically vulnerable, and exactly NONE of those people have died of Covid, and only four people have ended up with serious symptoms.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
"Good"?
Those numbers are extraordinary. Maccabi has jabbed more than 5% of the Israeli population, with a definite skew towards the older and the medically vulnerable, and exactly NONE of those people have died of Covid, and only four people have ended up with serious symptoms.
Yes, that is what I said.
Those numbers may well go up with time, and it hasn't been reported whether the serious cases are recovered, or are still in danger, but so far encouraging.
The problem is that it would be unfair to rely upon vaccine passports until everyone in the country has had an offer to get their vaccine.
But by the time everyone has had their offer to get their vaccine then what purpose would the passports serve as surely domestic restrictions would be done by then.
Only thing a passport maybe makes sense for domestically is large stadium etc events.
Stopping under 50s going to the pub, cinema, gigs when they reopen because they don't have a vaccine passport seems a pretty surefire way to me to guarantee serious unrest.
Precisely.
Only purpose I could think of for a vaccine passport is eg if they removed all restrictions except mass stadium gatherings until rollout was complete, then eg said "only those with a vaccine can go to stadia from now on". So eg for the next football league season stands can be open as normal but only with vaccinated fans.
If doing that I'd give vaccine certificates to anyone legitimately exempt from getting a vaccine.
But that could only start after everyone has had the opportunity to get a vaccine and realistically I expect restrictions will be lifted before then, so what's the point?
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
Exactly, and serious cases doesn't necessarily mean hospitalisation. Over here those are two separate definitions.
With 53m vaccinated twice by the middle of July or earlier we can't live in fear of what might happen. We have to live normally and use our CureVac deal to get ahead of the mutations. Ideally the AZ trial for over 6s comes through for us and we further reduce any potential source of infections.
Because the four had serious preexisting conditions, they were hospitalised. Whether they are still in hospital is another question.
STILL. It tells you just how incredibly effective the vaccine is.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
Why would rhose numbers creep up?
As time goes on I'd expect the numbers to creep down as the virus like a fire starved of oxygen struggles to replicate.
The problem is that it would be unfair to rely upon vaccine passports until everyone in the country has had an offer to get their vaccine.
But by the time everyone has had their offer to get their vaccine then what purpose would the passports serve as surely domestic restrictions would be done by then.
Only thing a passport maybe makes sense for domestically is large stadium etc events.
Indeed. We’ve said that allowing oldies to do as they please whilst youngsters are locked up would not be a good look. But it might have to be accepted for the sake of the economy.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Vaccinations are events aren't they?
Hospital numbers are the only real measure that matter in the long term. If we can turn this into something where only a few hundred people end up in hospital over each winter because they've refused a booster shot then it's the end state. We need to have the whole economy reopened and international travel with vaccine passports reopened as well to countries in a similar state of affairs.
Absolutely agreed, but as we get through this then we ought to be able to timetable how and when the hospital numbers will fall based upon the progress of the vaccination drive.
No we can't because there's two factors in this: hospitalisations per case, which are somewhat predictable based on vaccination progress, and cases, which are far less predictable because small differences in R quickly multiply into big differences in case numbers.
If hospitalisations per case are miniscule (because of vaccinations) then it doesn't matter too much what the case numbers are.
Plus of course fewer unvaccinated people will push R down by itself too.
Define minuscule, and when you think that level is going to be reached, keeping in mind that: - Two Pfizer shots reduce serious cases by 92% according to the Israel study. - Around 20% of hospitalisations are among the under 55s, and another 20% among the 55-64s. - Some percentage can't or (infuriatingly) won't have the vaccine.
The effect of the vaccines on R of course is enormously important, but the point remains that the effect of opening up steps on R cannot be predicted reliably. That's why those steps need to be driven off case and hospitalisation data rather than dates.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
I tend to think he - along with Barnier - are honest Europhiles, with a sincere desire for a united democratic Europe. I may think they are mistaken, but I don't think they are evil, and one could have a sensible conversation with them.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Vaccinations are events aren't they?
Hospital numbers are the only real measure that matter in the long term. If we can turn this into something where only a few hundred people end up in hospital over each winter because they've refused a booster shot then it's the end state. We need to have the whole economy reopened and international travel with vaccine passports reopened as well to countries in a similar state of affairs.
Absolutely agreed, but as we get through this then we ought to be able to timetable how and when the hospital numbers will fall based upon the progress of the vaccination drive.
No we can't because there's two factors in this: hospitalisations per case, which are somewhat predictable based on vaccination progress, and cases, which are far less predictable because small differences in R quickly multiply into big differences in case numbers.
If hospitalisations per case are miniscule (because of vaccinations) then it doesn't matter too much what the case numbers are.
Plus of course fewer unvaccinated people will push R down by itself too.
Define minuscule, and when you think that level is going to be reached, keeping in mind that: - Two Pfizer shots reduce serious cases by 92% according to the Israel study. - Around 20% of hospitalisations are among the under 55s, and another 20% among the 55-64s. - Some percentage can't or (infuriatingly) won't have the vaccine.
The effect of the vaccines on R of course is enormously important, but the point remains that the effect of opening up steps on R cannot be predicted reliably. That's why those steps need to be driven off case and hospitalisation data rather than dates.
You are misreading.
It reduced all symptomatic cases (not just serious ones) by 94%.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
The problem is that it would be unfair to rely upon vaccine passports until everyone in the country has had an offer to get their vaccine.
But by the time everyone has had their offer to get their vaccine then what purpose would the passports serve as surely domestic restrictions would be done by then.
Only thing a passport maybe makes sense for domestically is large stadium etc events.
Indeed. We’ve said that allowing oldies to do as they please whilst youngsters are locked up would not be a good look. But it might have to be accepted for the sake of the economy.
No. Absolutely not.
It would be completely unfair to do that and would lead to an immediate end of any civil contract of respecting restrictions. Why the hell should a youngster, who isn't that at risk of the virus in the first place, continue to obey restrictions if others no longer have to, purely because they've not even been offered a vaccine yet? The second you suggest that all respect for the law goes out the window.
Absolute non-starter. If the economy needs that, then the economy needs something else.
The problem is that it would be unfair to rely upon vaccine passports until everyone in the country has had an offer to get their vaccine.
But by the time everyone has had their offer to get their vaccine then what purpose would the passports serve as surely domestic restrictions would be done by then.
Only thing a passport maybe makes sense for domestically is large stadium etc events.
Indeed. We’ve said that allowing oldies to do as they please whilst youngsters are locked up would not be a good look. But it might have to be accepted for the sake of the economy.
Then expect plenty of reports of pissed off youths coughing all over pensioners.
Old people are already indulged enough by Government. It's not worth the aggro.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
I tend to think he - along with Barnier - are honest Europhiles, with a sincere desire for a united democratic Europe. I may think they are mistaken, but I don't think they are evil, and one could have a sensible conversation with them.
They need people who are unwavering supporters of the Union even when it messes up. It's far more useful than people who are unwavering supporters, but only if they deny problems (at least until it gets them out of the firing line). I should think most nations need that.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
Why would rhose numbers creep up?
As time goes on I'd expect the numbers to creep down as the virus like a fire starved of oxygen struggles to replicate.
They'll creep up (albeit probably not a lot) because they are cumulative.
If you looked at peak concurrent hospitalisations, you would probably come up with the answer of 1. Or it might be 2.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
This is probably a silly question, but is there a medical reason jabbing in the arm is better than, say, the leg?
It requires fewer clothes to be removed, and can therefore happen more quickly?
Well sure, I assume that's also why they don't jab in the butt, I just wondered if there was an additional reason. I mean, I could pull up my trouser leg to show a calf without removing anything, and in the summer people might need to even do that to get to the thigh.
Edit: I suppose the lingering soreness is less of an issue on the arm.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
"Good"?
Those numbers are extraordinary. Maccabi has jabbed more than 5% of the Israeli population, with a definite skew towards the older and the medically vulnerable, and exactly NONE of those people have died of Covid, and only four people have ended up with serious symptoms.
Yes, that is what I said.
Those numbers may well go up with time, and it hasn't been reported whether the serious cases are recovered, or are still in danger, but so far encouraging.
Is the @Foxy household known for its understatement?
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
Why would rhose numbers creep up?
As time goes on I'd expect the numbers to creep down as the virus like a fire starved of oxygen struggles to replicate.
They'll creep up (albeit probably not a lot) because they are cumulative.
If you looked at peak concurrent hospitalisations, you would probably come up with the answer of 1. Or it might be 2.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
Why would rhose numbers creep up?
As time goes on I'd expect the numbers to creep down as the virus like a fire starved of oxygen struggles to replicate.
Because the numbers are cumulative. They cannot go down, but if even a couple of those half million get covid each week, those numbers will creep up.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
I tend to think he - along with Barnier - are honest Europhiles, with a sincere desire for a united democratic Europe. I may think they are mistaken, but I don't think they are evil, and one could have a sensible conversation with them.
That's my point. I agree with the honest europhiles, inasmuch as I honour the nobility of their project: a true, united, federal, democratic EU, with an elected president and Commission, and the various states having about the same autonomy as US states today.
There is nothing wrong with that as an ambition. The problems are 1: the EU is trying to achieve this by stealth (cf the absolute mortifying horror of the Lisbon Constitution, sorry Treaty) and 2. I am not at all sure the EU can ever have a people, an electorate, a "demos", able to speak truth to power via elections and a free media. The languages and culture are so vastly different across the continent. Without a demos, no democracy.
But at least people like Verhoefstadt are candid about what they want. Skulking British europhiles who wanted the same, but were too scared, cowed or ashamed to admit it, got what they deserved with Brexit. THEY are the evil ones. From jovial Ken Clarke to that nice Nick Clegg to lovely Tony Blair, et al.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
Why would rhose numbers creep up?
As time goes on I'd expect the numbers to creep down as the virus like a fire starved of oxygen struggles to replicate.
They'll creep up (albeit probably not a lot) because they are cumulative.
If you looked at peak concurrent hospitalisations, you would probably come up with the answer of 1. Or it might be 2.
Oh I thought it was 4 in a day or in a week.
1 at a time is absolutely nothing.
And remember, the first 500,000 "jabbed" were the most medically vulnerable. You would expect the hospitalisation rates to be lower for younger people.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
"Good"?
Those numbers are extraordinary. Maccabi has jabbed more than 5% of the Israeli population, with a definite skew towards the older and the medically vulnerable, and exactly NONE of those people have died of Covid, and only four people have ended up with serious symptoms.
Yes, that is what I said.
Those numbers may well go up with time, and it hasn't been reported whether the serious cases are recovered, or are still in danger, but so far encouraging.
Is the @Foxy household know for its understatement.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Vaccinations are events aren't they?
Hospital numbers are the only real measure that matter in the long term. If we can turn this into something where only a few hundred people end up in hospital over each winter because they've refused a booster shot then it's the end state. We need to have the whole economy reopened and international travel with vaccine passports reopened as well to countries in a similar state of affairs.
Absolutely agreed, but as we get through this then we ought to be able to timetable how and when the hospital numbers will fall based upon the progress of the vaccination drive.
No we can't because there's two factors in this: hospitalisations per case, which are somewhat predictable based on vaccination progress, and cases, which are far less predictable because small differences in R quickly multiply into big differences in case numbers.
If hospitalisations per case are miniscule (because of vaccinations) then it doesn't matter too much what the case numbers are.
Plus of course fewer unvaccinated people will push R down by itself too.
Define minuscule, and when you think that level is going to be reached, keeping in mind that: - Two Pfizer shots reduce serious cases by 92% according to the Israel study. - Around 20% of hospitalisations are among the under 55s, and another 20% among the 55-64s. - Some percentage can't or (infuriatingly) won't have the vaccine.
The effect of the vaccines on R of course is enormously important, but the point remains that the effect of opening up steps on R cannot be predicted reliably. That's why those steps need to be driven off case and hospitalisation data rather than dates.
You are misreading.
It reduced all symptomatic cases (not just serious ones) by 94%.
It does seem odd that serious cases should drop less than symptomatic ones, although I'd guess that's just an artefact of the small sample size for serious cases. But it's gonna be in that ballpark.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
I tend to think he - along with Barnier - are honest Europhiles, with a sincere desire for a united democratic Europe. I may think they are mistaken, but I don't think they are evil, and one could have a sensible conversation with them.
That's my point. I agree with the honest europhiles, inasmuch as I honour the nobility of their project: a true, united, federal, democratic EU, with an elected president and Commission, and the various states having about the same autonomy as US states today.
There is nothing wrong with that as an ambition. The problems are 1: the EU is trying to achieve this by stealth (cf the absolute mortifying horror of the Lisbon Constitution, sorry Treaty) and 2. I am not at all sure the EU can ever have a people, an electorate, a "demos", able to speak truth to power via elections and a free media. The languages and culture are so vastly different across the continent. Without a demos, no democracy.
But at least people like Verhoefstadt are candid about what they want. Skulking British europhiles who wanted the same, but were too scared, cowed or ashamed to admit it, got what they deserved with Brexit. THEY are the evil ones. From jovial Ken Clarke to that nice Nick Clegg to lovely Tony Blair, et al.
You are absolutely correct that some people are snakes; who want EU integration but don't want to admit it, and follow the salami slicing principle.
But there are also others - like Mrs Thatcher was for a long-time - who was not a committed Europhile, but also saw the case for greater integration in certain areas.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
The problem is that it would be unfair to rely upon vaccine passports until everyone in the country has had an offer to get their vaccine.
But by the time everyone has had their offer to get their vaccine then what purpose would the passports serve as surely domestic restrictions would be done by then.
Only thing a passport maybe makes sense for domestically is large stadium etc events.
Indeed. We’ve said that allowing oldies to do as they please whilst youngsters are locked up would not be a good look. But it might have to be accepted for the sake of the economy.
No. Absolutely not.
It would be completely unfair to do that and would lead to an immediate end of any civil contract of respecting restrictions. Why the hell should a youngster, who isn't that at risk of the virus in the first place, continue to obey restrictions if others no longer have to, purely because they've not even been offered a vaccine yet? The second you suggest that all respect for the law goes out the window.
Absolute non-starter. If the economy needs that, then the economy needs something else.
The idea is utterly bonkers and the fact that it is even still being mooted in the Downing Street bubble suggests to me that everyone there steps away from their desks and goes for a long walk for an hour or two to clear their addled heads.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
This is probably a silly question, but is there a medical reason jabbing in the arm is better than, say, the leg?
It requires fewer clothes to be removed, and can therefore happen more quickly?
Well sure, I assume that's also why they don't jab in the butt, I just wondered if there was an additional reason. I mean, I could pull up my trouser leg to show a calf without removing anything, and in the summer people might need to even do that to get to the thigh.
Edit: I suppose the lingering soreness is less of an issue on the arm.
Intramuscular injections are best done in larger muscles, away from major blood vessels and nerves.
Large volume IM injections tend to be in the Gluteus Maximus, or butt as the Yanks say.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Vaccinations are events aren't they?
Hospital numbers are the only real measure that matter in the long term. If we can turn this into something where only a few hundred people end up in hospital over each winter because they've refused a booster shot then it's the end state. We need to have the whole economy reopened and international travel with vaccine passports reopened as well to countries in a similar state of affairs.
Absolutely agreed, but as we get through this then we ought to be able to timetable how and when the hospital numbers will fall based upon the progress of the vaccination drive.
No we can't because there's two factors in this: hospitalisations per case, which are somewhat predictable based on vaccination progress, and cases, which are far less predictable because small differences in R quickly multiply into big differences in case numbers.
If hospitalisations per case are miniscule (because of vaccinations) then it doesn't matter too much what the case numbers are.
Plus of course fewer unvaccinated people will push R down by itself too.
Define minuscule, and when you think that level is going to be reached, keeping in mind that: - Two Pfizer shots reduce serious cases by 92% according to the Israel study. - Around 20% of hospitalisations are among the under 55s, and another 20% among the 55-64s. - Some percentage can't or (infuriatingly) won't have the vaccine.
The effect of the vaccines on R of course is enormously important, but the point remains that the effect of opening up steps on R cannot be predicted reliably. That's why those steps need to be driven off case and hospitalisation data rather than dates.
You are misreading.
It reduced all symptomatic cases (not just serious ones) by 94%.
It does seem odd that serious cases should drop less than symptomatic ones, although I'd guess that's just an artefact of the small sample size for serious cases. But it's gonna be in that ballpark.
I think the 94% figure is from Clalit, the 92% from Maccabi.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
The source I'm relying on in this case does not suggest that the Falklands are underway just yet, but does indicate that most of the overseas territories and all of the crown dependencies are. Indeed, it is possible that some of them (the British Virgin Islands are another example) just haven't got around to reporting any numbers yet.
Gibraltar, the Caymans, the Turks & Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey and the Isle of Man are all currently running ahead of the United States in per capita terms.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
I tend to think he - along with Barnier - are honest Europhiles, with a sincere desire for a united democratic Europe. I may think they are mistaken, but I don't think they are evil, and one could have a sensible conversation with them.
That's my point. I agree with the honest europhiles, inasmuch as I honour the nobility of their project: a true, united, federal, democratic EU, with an elected president and Commission, and the various states having about the same autonomy as US states today.
There is nothing wrong with that as an ambition. The problems are 1: the EU is trying to achieve this by stealth (cf the absolute mortifying horror of the Lisbon Constitution, sorry Treaty) and 2. I am not at all sure the EU can ever have a people, an electorate, a "demos", able to speak truth to power via elections and a free media. The languages and culture are so vastly different across the continent. Without a demos, no democracy.
But at least people like Verhoefstadt are candid about what they want. Skulking British europhiles who wanted the same, but were too scared, cowed or ashamed to admit it, got what they deserved with Brexit. THEY are the evil ones. From jovial Ken Clarke to that nice Nick Clegg to lovely Tony Blair, et al.
You are absolutely correct that some people are snakes; who want EU integration but don't want to admit it, and follow the salami slicing principle.
But there are also others - like Mrs Thatcher was for a long-time - who was not a committed Europhile, but also saw the case for greater integration in certain areas.
And if it had kept to those certain areas, certain others, like myself, would have remained Remainers.
CNN - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in a letter to House Democrats on Monday plans for the creation of a "9/11-type commission" to investigate the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
"To protect our security, our security, our security, our next step will be to establish an outside, independent 9/11-type Commission to 'investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex,'" Pelosi wrote.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
This is probably a silly question, but is there a medical reason jabbing in the arm is better than, say, the leg?
It requires fewer clothes to be removed, and can therefore happen more quickly?
Well sure, I assume that's also why they don't jab in the butt, I just wondered if there was an additional reason. I mean, I could pull up my trouser leg to show a calf without removing anything, and in the summer people might need to even do that to get to the thigh.
Edit: I suppose the lingering soreness is less of an issue on the arm.
Intramuscular injections are best done in larger muscles, away from major blood vessels and nerves.
Large volume IM injections tend to be in the Gluteus Maximus, or butt as the Yanks say.
Not just the Yanks. The vaccination scenes in Shakespearean drama haven't received nearly the scholarly attention that they deserve:
The problem is that it would be unfair to rely upon vaccine passports until everyone in the country has had an offer to get their vaccine.
But by the time everyone has had their offer to get their vaccine then what purpose would the passports serve as surely domestic restrictions would be done by then.
Only thing a passport maybe makes sense for domestically is large stadium etc events.
Indeed. We’ve said that allowing oldies to do as they please whilst youngsters are locked up would not be a good look. But it might have to be accepted for the sake of the economy.
As a relatively older person, the problem needs to be looked at the other way round. I'm clinically vulnerable and well aware that the vaccination only protects me to a certain extent, let's say 80%. If pubs and restaurants allow unvaccinated people in then the risk to me increases. So without a passport system I and many other people over 60,will not be prepared to take the risk. That's the people with the money, by the way.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
I tend to think he - along with Barnier - are honest Europhiles, with a sincere desire for a united democratic Europe. I may think they are mistaken, but I don't think they are evil, and one could have a sensible conversation with them.
That's my point. I agree with the honest europhiles, inasmuch as I honour the nobility of their project: a true, united, federal, democratic EU, with an elected president and Commission, and the various states having about the same autonomy as US states today.
There is nothing wrong with that as an ambition. The problems are 1: the EU is trying to achieve this by stealth (cf the absolute mortifying horror of the Lisbon Constitution, sorry Treaty) and 2. I am not at all sure the EU can ever have a people, an electorate, a "demos", able to speak truth to power via elections and a free media. The languages and culture are so vastly different across the continent. Without a demos, no democracy.
But at least people like Verhoefstadt are candid about what they want. Skulking British europhiles who wanted the same, but were too scared, cowed or ashamed to admit it, got what they deserved with Brexit. THEY are the evil ones. From jovial Ken Clarke to that nice Nick Clegg to lovely Tony Blair, et al.
You are absolutely correct that some people are snakes; who want EU integration but don't want to admit it, and follow the salami slicing principle.
But there are also others - like Mrs Thatcher was for a long-time - who was not a committed Europhile, but also saw the case for greater integration in certain areas.
And if it had kept to those certain areas, certain others, like myself, would have remained Remainers.
Indeed. If the EU was just a trading bloc I'd have no issue with it. It's why I'm in favour of the trade deal. It takes our relationship with the EU back to being trade deal and not a lot more. All of the whining about how we need a closer deal or to go into the EEA is just people who want to rejoin simply trying to enable that by the EEA route "well we're in the single market now and have free movement so why not be part of the decision making process and rejoin". It's extremely transparent.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
Having watched the vids, he hasn't really got a handle on the strategic issues with the EC approach, and is furiously blaming Big Pharma.
I think there's some spin as well such as "EU is the vaccine production centre of the world". In volume (which is what he implies), I would say it is India. Maybe in creation, but I don't really believe that either.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
Having watched the vids, he hasn't really got a handle on the strategic issues with the EC approach, and is furiously blaming Big Pharma.
I think there's some spin as well such as "EU is the vaccine production centre of the world". In volume (which is what he implies), I would say it is India. Maybe in creation, but I don't really believe that either.
To give them some credit, two of the three mRNA vaccine companies are EU-based: BioNTech and CureVac.
The R in London has completely dropped off, I think we're at just over 0.6 so I think we need to start looking into whether herd immunity has been reached in some boroughs.
How would you propose testing that hypothesis? (Which I think is potentially valid - but if so will likely be through a combination of Vaccine, Antibodies from previous COVID infection, T-Cell from previous COVID, and T-Cell from previous related infection - so non straightforward to test for)
Also - it might be the case that herd immunity has been reached *with the current lockdown rules in place* - ie that herd immunity has been reached amongst hospital workers, bus drivers etc. but that the general populace is still more vulnerable.
I agree with all of that. It is a very difficult hypothesis to test. However, globally, if we assume in the aggregate the rate of human contact is similar throughout the world, then I cannot fathom an explanation as to the current downward slope of the below graph unless the virus is running out of people to infect, or at least cause symptoms in. It's been doing this for over a month now - tomorrow or the day after the seven day average will be half what it was at the peak on 13 January.
People were calling "herd immunity" last June, as I recall.
They were wrong. And those claiming it now may be wrong. But the fact of the longest and sharpest global decline incases since the beginning of the pandemic is one that needs an explanation and it is not an unreasonable hypothesis.
I think prevalence estimates for past infection are not high enough for herd immunity to account for the drop.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
The source I'm relying on in this case does not suggest that the Falklands are underway just yet, but does indicate that most of the overseas territories and all of the crown dependencies are. Indeed, it is possible that some of them (the British Virgin Islands are another example) just haven't got around to reporting any numbers yet.
Gibraltar, the Caymans, the Turks & Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey and the Isle of Man are all currently running ahead of the United States in per capita terms.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
The source I'm relying on in this case does not suggest that the Falklands are underway just yet, but does indicate that most of the overseas territories and all of the crown dependencies are. Indeed, it is possible that some of them (the British Virgin Islands are another example) just haven't got around to reporting any numbers yet.
Gibraltar, the Caymans, the Turks & Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey and the Isle of Man are all currently running ahead of the United States in per capita terms.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
Having watched the vids, he hasn't really got a handle on the strategic issues with the EC approach, and is furiously blaming Big Pharma.
I think there's some spin as well such as "EU is the vaccine production centre of the world". In volume (which is what he implies), I would say it is India. Maybe in creation, but I don't really believe that either.
To give them some credit, two of the three mRNA vaccine companies are EU-based: BioNTech and CureVac.
But only one of the ten vaccines with any sort of authorization in the world have anything to do with an EU country.
Edit: anything to do with is too harsh: were not invented in an EU country.
The problem is that it would be unfair to rely upon vaccine passports until everyone in the country has had an offer to get their vaccine.
But by the time everyone has had their offer to get their vaccine then what purpose would the passports serve as surely domestic restrictions would be done by then.
Only thing a passport maybe makes sense for domestically is large stadium etc events.
Stopping under 50s going to the pub, cinema, gigs when they reopen because they don't have a vaccine passport seems a pretty surefire way to me to guarantee serious unrest.
Precisely.
Only purpose I could think of for a vaccine passport is eg if they removed all restrictions except mass stadium gatherings until rollout was complete, then eg said "only those with a vaccine can go to stadia from now on". So eg for the next football league season stands can be open as normal but only with vaccinated fans.
If doing that I'd give vaccine certificates to anyone legitimately exempt from getting a vaccine.
But that could only start after everyone has had the opportunity to get a vaccine and realistically I expect restrictions will be lifted before then, so what's the point?
I tend to agree but a possible exception could be Euro 2021. We could offer to host the whole tournament on the promise of filling the stadiums with vaccinated people (eg key workers) which would be far preferable than restricted attendances/closed doors. Sure, I won’t be able to attend but at least it would mean that the tournament could go ahead and would have a great atmosphere for TV etc.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
The source I'm relying on in this case does not suggest that the Falklands are underway just yet, but does indicate that most of the overseas territories and all of the crown dependencies are. Indeed, it is possible that some of them (the British Virgin Islands are another example) just haven't got around to reporting any numbers yet.
Gibraltar, the Caymans, the Turks & Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey and the Isle of Man are all currently running ahead of the United States in per capita terms.
What about Pitcairn, emerging hub for UK-Pacific free trade deal?
Hmm. Pitcairn? What are we trading, our daughters?
Speaking of the birds & the bees (but NOT sex crimes) perhaps the UK should consider ceding its best bee-keeping areas to Pitcairn, so they can partake of the island's thriving (but miniscule) trade in organic honey.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
The source I'm relying on in this case does not suggest that the Falklands are underway just yet, but does indicate that most of the overseas territories and all of the crown dependencies are. Indeed, it is possible that some of them (the British Virgin Islands are another example) just haven't got around to reporting any numbers yet.
Gibraltar, the Caymans, the Turks & Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey and the Isle of Man are all currently running ahead of the United States in per capita terms.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
Having watched the vids, he hasn't really got a handle on the strategic issues with the EC approach, and is furiously blaming Big Pharma.
I think there's some spin as well such as "EU is the vaccine production centre of the world". In volume (which is what he implies), I would say it is India. Maybe in creation, but I don't really believe that either.
To give them some credit, two of the three mRNA vaccine companies are EU-based: BioNTech and CureVac.
But only one of the ten vaccines with any sort of authorization in the world have anything to do with an EU country.
Edit: anything to do with is too harsh: were not invented in an EU country.
One thing that's impressed me is how the UK hasn't discriminated in its drive to onshore manufacturing. Of the four manufacturing deals we've signed here only one is with a UK vaccine and two are with UK companies (AZ for the Oxford vaccone and GSK for the CureVac vaccine) one of them is French - Valneva but we've subsidised it's manufacturing in Scotland and the other is American - Novavax. No one in the country has said that taxpayer money should go to domestic companies, we're just happy to have them being made here. I think part of the EU problem has been to try and support domestic companies rather than the best candidates.
The problem is that it would be unfair to rely upon vaccine passports until everyone in the country has had an offer to get their vaccine.
But by the time everyone has had their offer to get their vaccine then what purpose would the passports serve as surely domestic restrictions would be done by then.
Only thing a passport maybe makes sense for domestically is large stadium etc events.
Indeed. We’ve said that allowing oldies to do as they please whilst youngsters are locked up would not be a good look. But it might have to be accepted for the sake of the economy.
Then expect plenty of reports of pissed off youths coughing all over pensioners.
Old people are already indulged enough by Government. It's not worth the aggro.
Indeed. The idea that you would lock up healthy 30-year-olds who are at almost zero risk from covid while the older, fully vaccinated population parties is among the stupidest ideas I have read on PB since this shitshow began.
Millions of people want to escape this and go on holiday.
The prior question was about support for people with mental health problems. Having clarity about holidays one way or another, and asking about when and if is a part of the normalisation of our lives and a coping mechanism for people who are suffering.
Does it mean they are demanding holidays? Only JHB and Tobes. The rest are just willing for it all to be "ok" and these questions are part of it.
Not everyone is as sanguine, wise, or has all the stats at their fingertips plus an informed view of the viral epidemiology.
Where do they want to go, Israel?
They are just scared, depressed, nervous, anxious. But for sure smartarse comments will help I'm sure.
I'm genuinely curious where they are hoping to go? Perhaps a dose of realism is in order.
Rob they want it all to be ok later in the year. Will it be? Who knows. But that is what people, in all their illogical, ignorant, misinformed glory want.
And hence the press are articulating this.
Both the questions and the answers are part of the coping mechanism.
The journalist was asking about holidays in weeks, not months. They should simply get a grip and stop asking.
I know we're all on PB but you do understand how human beings work, don't you?
Not all as clever as you, obvs, but the lumpen proletariat are a funny lot.
I honestly don't see how anyone, lumpen or not, benefits from false hope. There's plenty of good news coming in by the day, but foreign holidays are obviously going to be impractical for a while and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's not false hope. It's a process. First, it means it is in the public domain and, as @Anabobazina points out, ensures that the government - and scientists - are aware that millions of people want them, somehow, to work towards getting them to be able to go on holiday as soon as possible.
Secondly, by articulating it it is then out in the open. So "When can I go on holiday?" is met with "Not yet." that addresses directly peoples' concerns and helps them reconcile themselves with the situation.
Well, God knows the country is in need of some collective reassurance and counselling during this thing. In the past, my concern was that that kind of pressure could lead to too quick a loosening for the sake of some easy popularity, but it looks as if the government have learned that lesson this time around.
Except that this approach contradicts the government's own narrative.
Look at our wonderful vaccines!
Careful they may NOT protect you! that's why we still need lockdown!!
No it doesn't. Why do you keep peddling something you don't understand?
1. The vaccines don't protect EVERYBODY, although they do protect most people. 2. Not everyone is vaccinated. 3. Time is needed after vaccination to build immunity.
Which part of this don't you understand?
Contrarian understands all of that. What he is saying is despite the government presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet reasons will always be found for more lockdowns because the public/gov opponents/the media/the killjoys have a taste for it.
I think Contrarian over-eggs it rather and I don`t accept that the government is addicted to authoritarian measures.
Either it is a silver bullet or it isn't
If it is we no longer need lockdowns and we can indeed set a timetable for exit.
If vaccination isn't a silver bullet then why are they trumpeting it like it is?
The only answer is surely that the government's strategy is containment.
Get through today, get to tomorrow.
Shouldn't the timetable be set by events?
Yes. Hospitalisations and deaths. What if, as the PM and the medicos were saying today, the timetable is set by just in case. Just in case new variants emerge. Just in case cases spike. Just in case the vaccine is not effective. Just in case...
Completely agree. If 100k people per day are testing positive but only 10 people per day are going to hospital for it then there's no need for lockdown. We can't allow for this idea of zero COVID to take off. We need to aim to minimise hospitalisation and death from it, nothing more than that.
I think Hancock knocked Zero Covid on the head the other week and the recent outbreaks in NZ and Aus have demonstrated the impossibility of the idea even there.
Ferguson, the man whose modelling sent us into the first lockdown, has gone on record to say he is optimistic and he's still on NERVTAG. Ultimately, unless you believe in a global conspiracy we will be driven in part by what happens elsewhere. For example, if Tokyo runs an Olympic Games that results in a devastating second wave we won't have any spectators back in stadiums for the forseeable. However, if the games go without much of a hitch, then expect pressure to build here. I am confident that there will be crowds at US college and NFL football come September, similarly that will inform the debate about crowds in the Premier League.
Thing is, the vaccines actually do make "zero" covid more feasible, both because they help suppress it in the first place, and because they slow down any outbreaks, thus making it possible to contain them without full lockdown. 10 hospitalisations in 100,000 cases isn't realistic when vaccine efficacy is 95%.
Vaccine efficacy is 95% for mild symptoms. It's close to 100% against hospitalisation. 1 in 10,000 (99.99%) for an mRNA vaccine is actually realistic becuase we have two trials with 40k each and neither has had any hospitalisations in the vaccine arm.
Only a small proportion of those would have been exposed to the virus, so that is not a valid conclusion to draw from those numbers.
This Israel study found 92% efficacy against serious illness after two Pfizer doses (which is still bloody brilliant):
You're misreading that. It says a 92% reduction in severe cases and a 94% efficacy overall. That means in 100,000 cases where previously around 60k were symptomatic and of those 6k would get serious symptoms and around 2k serious enough to go hospital and 1k serious enough to die (rough numbers, I know), now we get a situation where only 6k people get any symptom and 480 of them have serious symptoms, we don't know how that currently translates to hospitalisations becuase they haven't released the data, also don't forget that the vaccine groups in Israel are predominantly those who are older (same as here) so they are predisposed to serious symptoms, among the wider population that reduction might go up.
In Maccabi, with 500 000 immunised, a week after the second vaccine 544 cases have been reported, with 4 serious, and no deaths so far. As time goes on, we would expect these numbers to creep up, but so far appears good.
"Good"?
Those numbers are extraordinary. Maccabi has jabbed more than 5% of the Israeli population, with a definite skew towards the older and the medically vulnerable, and exactly NONE of those people have died of Covid, and only four people have ended up with serious symptoms.
Yes, that is what I said.
Those numbers may well go up with time, and it hasn't been reported whether the serious cases are recovered, or are still in danger, but so far encouraging.
Is the @Foxy household know for its understatement.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
Having watched the vids, he hasn't really got a handle on the strategic issues with the EC approach, and is furiously blaming Big Pharma.
I think there's some spin as well such as "EU is the vaccine production centre of the world". In volume (which is what he implies), I would say it is India. Maybe in creation, but I don't really believe that either.
To give them some credit, two of the three mRNA vaccine companies are EU-based: BioNTech and CureVac.
But only one of the ten vaccines with any sort of authorization in the world have anything to do with an EU country.
Edit: anything to do with is too harsh: were not invented in an EU country.
The Western vaccines to have completed Phase 3 are:
The problem is that it would be unfair to rely upon vaccine passports until everyone in the country has had an offer to get their vaccine.
But by the time everyone has had their offer to get their vaccine then what purpose would the passports serve as surely domestic restrictions would be done by then.
Only thing a passport maybe makes sense for domestically is large stadium etc events.
Stopping under 50s going to the pub, cinema, gigs when they reopen because they don't have a vaccine passport seems a pretty surefire way to me to guarantee serious unrest.
Precisely.
Only purpose I could think of for a vaccine passport is eg if they removed all restrictions except mass stadium gatherings until rollout was complete, then eg said "only those with a vaccine can go to stadia from now on". So eg for the next football league season stands can be open as normal but only with vaccinated fans.
If doing that I'd give vaccine certificates to anyone legitimately exempt from getting a vaccine.
But that could only start after everyone has had the opportunity to get a vaccine and realistically I expect restrictions will be lifted before then, so what's the point?
I tend to agree but a possible exception could be Euro 2021. We could offer to host the whole tournament on the promise of filling the stadiums with vaccinated people (eg key workers) which would be far preferable than restricted attendances/closed doors. Sure, I won’t be able to attend but at least it would mean that the tournament could go ahead and would have a great atmosphere for TV etc.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
This is probably a silly question, but is there a medical reason jabbing in the arm is better than, say, the leg?
It requires fewer clothes to be removed, and can therefore happen more quickly?
Well sure, I assume that's also why they don't jab in the butt, I just wondered if there was an additional reason. I mean, I could pull up my trouser leg to show a calf without removing anything, and in the summer people might need to even do that to get to the thigh.
Edit: I suppose the lingering soreness is less of an issue on the arm.
Intramuscular injections are best done in larger muscles, away from major blood vessels and nerves.
Large volume IM injections tend to be in the Gluteus Maximus, or butt as the Yanks say.
Not just the Yanks. The vaccination scenes in Shakespearean drama haven't received nearly the scholarly attention that they deserve:
'Here is my butt' — Othello, Act V, Scene II
Also Othello....Iago: "I come to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two vacs."
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
Having watched the vids, he hasn't really got a handle on the strategic issues with the EC approach, and is furiously blaming Big Pharma.
I think there's some spin as well such as "EU is the vaccine production centre of the world". In volume (which is what he implies), I would say it is India. Maybe in creation, but I don't really believe that either.
To give them some credit, two of the three mRNA vaccine companies are EU-based: BioNTech and CureVac.
But only one of the ten vaccines with any sort of authorization in the world have anything to do with an EU country.
Edit: anything to do with is too harsh: were not invented in an EU country.
One thing that's impressed me is how the UK hasn't discriminated in its drive to onshore manufacturing. Of the four manufacturing deals we've signed here only one is with a UK vaccine and two are with UK companies (AZ for the Oxford vaccone and GSK for the CureVac vaccine) one of them is French - Valneva but we've subsidised it's manufacturing in Scotland and the other is American - Novavax. No one in the country has said that taxpayer money should go to domestic companies, we're just happy to have them being made here. I think part of the EU problem has been to try and support domestic companies rather than the best candidates.
Spot on: what we need is dedicated manufacturing capacity, and the UK was absolutely right to subsidise it.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
I tend to think he - along with Barnier - are honest Europhiles, with a sincere desire for a united democratic Europe. I may think they are mistaken, but I don't think they are evil, and one could have a sensible conversation with them.
My view is that you could have a sensible conversation - and a laugh - with Guy Verhofstadht on any subject other than a federal Europe.
Watch any speech of his on that subject: the eyes pop out, the arms flail, and the spittle flies everywhere. And what he says is utterly barking.
He makes Kinnock's Sheffield Rally look like a Marr on Sunday interview.
Except that the governing party will base its election campaign almost entirely around independence and near enough half the population will vote for it. We all know it's true.
In fairness, I seem to remember people saying for years that the public didn't care about Europe based on polls like this. Bread and butter issues are always going to come out on top. Doesn't mean the public don't care about more philosophical issues.
End of April for over 50s requires an average of 368,338 jabs per day. With 10.92 million second jabs needed in the mix
It has to be much more than 10.92 million isn't it? It is surely over 14 million?
Not by the end of April though
Why not? He announced today they'd be done by end of April didn't he?
Only 2nd doses required by end of April are those that had first jabs by end of Jan. surely.
As I said on the day Mrs BJO had her jab she was told her 2nd one "could be up to 20 weeks" after first one.
I have had mine in February and been given a date of 4.5.21 for 2nd one
Whoever told you that was being overly pessimistic.
Its been officially confirmed a few times since then they're sticking with a 12 week timescale and unless I misheard Boris committed tonight that all of the 1-4 group second doses will be completed by 30 April. So even if someone got their first jab on 13 February, the second jab is now due by 30 April.
Except that the governing party will base its election campaign almost entirely around independence and near enough half the population will vote for it. We all know it's true.
'Near enough half' may indeed vote SNP in the election in 2021.
But in any independence vote which may follow, the vote for independence will be less than 50%. Just like last time.
The Columbian (Vancouver, WA) - Senate reverses decision to call Herrera Beutler for impeachment testimonyTrending Statement from congresswoman describing Jan. 6 Trump call to be admitted to record
[This from this Sunday's edition of Herrera-Beutler's home-town newspaper]
"In a series of unexpected twists Saturday morning, the Senate decided against delaying a verdict in the impeachment trial so that they could call Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Battle Ground, as a witness.
Herrera Beutler’s written statement was instead accepted into the trial record.
The decision came after Herrera Beutler described secondhand a phone call that took place on Jan. 6, as a mob stormed the Capitol to try and stop the certification of the presidential election results. According to Herrera Beutler, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House GOP leader, had called then-President Donald Trump to try and convince him to call the rioters off. . . .
Herrera Beutler’s bombshell was originally reported by local media on Jan. 17, tucked into a lengthy interview with the Longview Daily News. She reiterated the recollection of the McCarthy phone call in a Feb. 8 telephone town hall that was ostensibly to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccinations. . . . .
The revelation catapulted the typically low-profile congresswoman into a national spotlight for the second time in a month. The first time came on Jan. 12, when she became the fifth of 10 Republicans to publicly announce that she’d vote to advance an article of impeachment to the Senate. . . .
Her stand on impeachment earned her accolades from many constituents in her moderate district, and political scholars have suggested that it will actually help rather than hurt her 2022 re-election prospects.
The chorus included former congressional challenger and Democrat Carolyn Long, who took to social media on Saturday to praise Herrera Beutler for speaking up during the trial.
“Failing to hold Trump accountable for his part, especially and including during the actual event when he disregarded House Speaker McCarthy’s call for assistance, would set a disastrous precedent for the future,” Long wrote. “Good for her.”
The Clark County Republican Party, however, had condemned Herrera Beutler for her initial impeachment vote. CCRP Chair Joel Mattila said Saturday that the group will likely double down on its censure of the congresswoman at the next central committee meeting on Feb. 23.
“The precinct committee officers will have their voice then and I expect this will only strengthen their resolve to pass a resolution condemning her impeachment vote and now her becoming a star witness for the Democrats in their un-Constitutional impeachment charade,” Mattila said in a text message to The Columbian.
Except that the governing party will base its election campaign almost entirely around independence and near enough half the population will vote for it. We all know it's true.
'Near enough half' may indeed vote SNP in the election in 2021.
But in any independence vote which may follow, the vote for independence will be less than 50%. Just like last time.
Don't count on it. If independence was as peripheral an issue as this duff poll suggests then they wouldn't keep voting over and over and over again for politicians who care about nothing else.
Except that the governing party will base its election campaign almost entirely around independence and near enough half the population will vote for it. We all know it's true.
'Near enough half' may indeed vote SNP in the election in 2021.
But in any independence vote which may follow, the vote for independence will be less than 50%. Just like last time.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
I tend to think he - along with Barnier - are honest Europhiles, with a sincere desire for a united democratic Europe. I may think they are mistaken, but I don't think they are evil, and one could have a sensible conversation with them.
That's my point. I agree with the honest europhiles, inasmuch as I honour the nobility of their project: a true, united, federal, democratic EU, with an elected president and Commission, and the various states having about the same autonomy as US states today.
There is nothing wrong with that as an ambition. The problems are 1: the EU is trying to achieve this by stealth (cf the absolute mortifying horror of the Lisbon Constitution, sorry Treaty) and 2. I am not at all sure the EU can ever have a people, an electorate, a "demos", able to speak truth to power via elections and a free media. The languages and culture are so vastly different across the continent. Without a demos, no democracy.
But at least people like Verhoefstadt are candid about what they want. Skulking British europhiles who wanted the same, but were too scared, cowed or ashamed to admit it, got what they deserved with Brexit. THEY are the evil ones. From jovial Ken Clarke to that nice Nick Clegg to lovely Tony Blair, et al.
You are absolutely correct that some people are snakes; who want EU integration but don't want to admit it, and follow the salami slicing principle.
But there are also others - like Mrs Thatcher was for a long-time - who was not a committed Europhile, but also saw the case for greater integration in certain areas.
Reading Charles Moore's second and third biographies of her is fascinating in this respect.
Basically, she was always eurosceptic but saw the community as a way to extend market economics and inhibit socialism here in the UK by regulating it out; in other words, she was pursuing internationalist methods solely for national ends.
Once that illusion became so obviously unsustainable she turned decisively against it, because she ultimately didn't agree with its federalist vision.
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
The source I'm relying on in this case does not suggest that the Falklands are underway just yet, but does indicate that most of the overseas territories and all of the crown dependencies are. Indeed, it is possible that some of them (the British Virgin Islands are another example) just haven't got around to reporting any numbers yet.
Gibraltar, the Caymans, the Turks & Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey and the Isle of Man are all currently running ahead of the United States in per capita terms.
Re: Washington State Congresswoman Jaime Herrera-Beutler, note that
> in WA there is no party registration NOR party primary. Instead, voters can vote for any one candidate for US House in the August primary, with the top-two vote-getters advancing (regardless of party) to the general election ballot.
> thus while it's virtually certain that JHB will draw a pro-Trumpsky challenger from the Putinist wing of the Republican Party, she still has a good chance of making it through to the November 2022 ballot, especially IF she gets significant primary support from Democrats and Independent.
> redistricting MAY help JHB; note that in WA it's done by semi-independent commission, plus population growth in Clark Co since 2010 means her current 3rd Congressional District will likely loose some super-GOP turf in eastern (and maybe western) WA.
End of April for over 50s requires an average of 368,338 jabs per day. With 10.92 million second jabs needed in the mix
It has to be much more than 10.92 million isn't it? It is surely over 14 million?
Not by the end of April though
Why not? He announced today they'd be done by end of April didn't he?
Only 2nd doses required by end of April are those that had first jabs by end of Jan. surely.
As I said on the day Mrs BJO had her jab she was told her 2nd one "could be up to 20 weeks" after first one.
I have had mine in February and been given a date of 4.5.21 for 2nd one
Whoever told you that was being overly pessimistic.
Its been officially confirmed a few times since then they're sticking with a 12 week timescale and unless I misheard Boris committed tonight that all of the 1-4 group second doses will be completed by 30 April. So even if someone got their first jab on 13 February, the second jab is now due by 30 April.
I won't be: I'm booked in for the 1st of May...
Partner group 2 is May 6th. So they won't be hitting that target. Even if it is one.
Not sure why he's split his video up into so many discrete chunks that are so short though. I do like the shots of reading and highlighting contracts however, makes for a more dynamic video than merely a statement.
Though given all the incoming doses, not sure they would see a need to follow some of his suggestions for renegotiation.
Confession: I have a soft spot for Guy Verhoefsdtattdat. (sp?)
He seems rather amusing, and he is an honest Federalist. He wants a united Europe, under one democratic government. I believe that is Utopian, but it is an honourable cause, much better than the evil anti-democratic, crypto-technocratic EU that has, so far, been constructed, with no apparent prospect of real reform.
Apparently he is, like Juncker, a drinking buddy of Farage. It would not surprise me.
He is also right in his criticisms, even if he elides EU/Europe. The vaccine programme is such a major EU fuck up I am not sure it will be forgotten that quickly, even if the market floods with jabs in the summer. People will remember.
Whether that leaves EU citizens wanting more EU or less, I have no idea.
What I have noted in myself is that I am now referring to Europe when I mean "Europe minus the UK" - ie the Continent. Mentally, I used to think of the UK as part of "Europe". I no longer do so. Of course logically, geographically, culturally, we are and always will be a hugely important part of Europe. But as a shorthand, for me, the concept "Europe" no longer automatically includes the UK. It is the "UK & Europe".
To give a concrete example. If a non-European asked me, "well, what do they do in Europe?", I would not reflexively answer, "well this is what we do in Britain, part of Europe". That has already gone.
Having watched the vids, he hasn't really got a handle on the strategic issues with the EC approach, and is furiously blaming Big Pharma.
I think there's some spin as well such as "EU is the vaccine production centre of the world". In volume (which is what he implies), I would say it is India. Maybe in creation, but I don't really believe that either.
Perhaps Verhofstadht is more accurately described as a European nationalist rather than a federalist.
Editorial in the Swedish business newspaper Dagens industri: "Corona vaccination is the first global crisis where the British system has competed with the EU. Britain won. That's just the beginning." https://twitter.com/NilssonPM/status/1360986331917254658
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
The source I'm relying on in this case does not suggest that the Falklands are underway just yet, but does indicate that most of the overseas territories and all of the crown dependencies are. Indeed, it is possible that some of them (the British Virgin Islands are another example) just haven't got around to reporting any numbers yet.
Gibraltar, the Caymans, the Turks & Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey and the Isle of Man are all currently running ahead of the United States in per capita terms.
You stick with the UK; you get the benefits.
Why are we sending our vaccines to them? What have they done for us other than enable a load of companies of to dodge a load of tax that could have gone to the NHS?
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
This is probably a silly question, but is there a medical reason jabbing in the arm is better than, say, the leg?
It requires fewer clothes to be removed, and can therefore happen more quickly?
Well sure, I assume that's also why they don't jab in the butt, I just wondered if there was an additional reason. I mean, I could pull up my trouser leg to show a calf without removing anything, and in the summer people might need to even do that to get to the thigh.
Edit: I suppose the lingering soreness is less of an issue on the arm.
Intramuscular injections are best done in larger muscles, away from major blood vessels and nerves.
Large volume IM injections tend to be in the Gluteus Maximus, or butt as the Yanks say.
Not just the Yanks. The vaccination scenes in Shakespearean drama haven't received nearly the scholarly attention that they deserve:
'Here is my butt' — Othello, Act V, Scene II
Also Othello....Iago: "I come to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two vacs."
Iago: "Pricked to ’t by foolish honesty and love...."
The UK has done a brilliant job of jabbing its overseas territories. The Caymans, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Falklands, etc, are all world leading in Jabs-per-tricep.
This is probably a silly question, but is there a medical reason jabbing in the arm is better than, say, the leg?
It requires fewer clothes to be removed, and can therefore happen more quickly?
Well sure, I assume that's also why they don't jab in the butt, I just wondered if there was an additional reason. I mean, I could pull up my trouser leg to show a calf without removing anything, and in the summer people might need to even do that to get to the thigh.
Edit: I suppose the lingering soreness is less of an issue on the arm.
Intramuscular injections are best done in larger muscles, away from major blood vessels and nerves.
Large volume IM injections tend to be in the Gluteus Maximus, or butt as the Yanks say.
Were they doing it in the leg, it would be thigh or calf.
I (very) occasionally do insulin in my calf if I need it to act a few minutes quicker than normal subcutaneous injections.
Comments
For me it was one of the nadirs. I felt the general Covid depression deepen. Nothing terrible. not suicidal. But the bleakness intensified.
Now, a hint of hope. May it grow!
Gibraltar, the Caymans, the Turks & Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey and the Isle of Man are all currently running ahead of the United States in per capita terms.
With 53m vaccinated twice by the middle of July or earlier we can't live in fear of what might happen. We have to live normally and use our CureVac deal to get ahead of the mutations. Ideally the AZ trial for over 6s comes through for us and we further reduce any potential source of infections.
Those numbers are extraordinary. Maccabi has jabbed more than 5% of the Israeli population, with a definite skew towards the older and the medically vulnerable, and exactly NONE of those people have died of Covid, and only four people have ended up with serious symptoms.
Those numbers may well go up with time, and it hasn't been reported whether the serious cases are recovered, or are still in danger, but so far encouraging.
Only purpose I could think of for a vaccine passport is eg if they removed all restrictions except mass stadium gatherings until rollout was complete, then eg said "only those with a vaccine can go to stadia from now on". So eg for the next football league season stands can be open as normal but only with vaccinated fans.
If doing that I'd give vaccine certificates to anyone legitimately exempt from getting a vaccine.
But that could only start after everyone has had the opportunity to get a vaccine and realistically I expect restrictions will be lifted before then, so what's the point?
STILL. It tells you just how incredibly effective the vaccine is.
As time goes on I'd expect the numbers to creep down as the virus like a fire starved of oxygen struggles to replicate.
- Two Pfizer shots reduce serious cases by 92% according to the Israel study.
- Around 20% of hospitalisations are among the under 55s, and another 20% among the 55-64s.
- Some percentage can't or (infuriatingly) won't have the vaccine.
The effect of the vaccines on R of course is enormously important, but the point remains that the effect of opening up steps on R cannot be predicted reliably. That's why those steps need to be driven off case and hospitalisation data rather than dates.
It reduced all symptomatic cases (not just serious ones) by 94%.
It would be completely unfair to do that and would lead to an immediate end of any civil contract of respecting restrictions. Why the hell should a youngster, who isn't that at risk of the virus in the first place, continue to obey restrictions if others no longer have to, purely because they've not even been offered a vaccine yet? The second you suggest that all respect for the law goes out the window.
Absolute non-starter. If the economy needs that, then the economy needs something else.
Old people are already indulged enough by Government. It's not worth the aggro.
If you looked at peak concurrent hospitalisations, you would probably come up with the answer of 1. Or it might be 2.
Edit: I suppose the lingering soreness is less of an issue on the arm.
"Honey, dinner tonight was acceptable."
1 at a time is absolutely nothing.
There is nothing wrong with that as an ambition. The problems are 1: the EU is trying to achieve this by stealth (cf the absolute mortifying horror of the Lisbon Constitution, sorry Treaty) and 2. I am not at all sure the EU can ever have a people, an electorate, a "demos", able to speak truth to power via elections and a free media. The languages and culture are so vastly different across the continent. Without a demos, no democracy.
But at least people like Verhoefstadt are candid about what they want. Skulking British europhiles who wanted the same, but were too scared, cowed or ashamed to admit it, got what they deserved with Brexit. THEY are the evil ones. From jovial Ken Clarke to that nice Nick Clegg to lovely Tony Blair, et al.
(Just kidding!)
Knitting is very popular and there is room for a run up.
"Research by Clalit, the biggest healthcare provider in Israel, shows that the Pfizer vaccine is equally effective for all age groups, with preliminary data showing a 94% drop in symptomatic cases and a 92% drop in serious cases."
It does seem odd that serious cases should drop less than symptomatic ones, although I'd guess that's just an artefact of the small sample size for serious cases. But it's gonna be in that ballpark.
But there are also others - like Mrs Thatcher was for a long-time - who was not a committed Europhile, but also saw the case for greater integration in certain areas.
Large volume IM injections tend to be in the Gluteus Maximus, or butt as the Yanks say.
Anyone seen the Redfield Wilton poll this evening yet? Or have I missed it.
https://en.mercopress.com/2021/02/12/falklands-vaccination-program-friday-morning-session-for-remaining-over-50s
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-15-february-2021/
CON 41%
LAB 39%
Anyway, no-one is interested in polls at the moment, it's all about 22 Feb Plan speculation!
"To protect our security, our security, our security, our next step will be to establish an outside, independent 9/11-type Commission to 'investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex,'" Pelosi wrote.
'Here is my butt' — Othello, Act V, Scene II
I think there's some spin as well such as "EU is the vaccine production centre of the world". In volume (which is what he implies), I would say it is India. Maybe in creation, but I don't really believe that either.
https://twitter.com/Spartan_Intel/status/1361431393331531785
I take it you are expecting a ten point Tory lead when we follow Johnson to the promised land next Monday.
Edit: anything to do with is too harsh: were not invented in an EU country.
Perhaps the gap is closing because people are getting nervous about our Government's Marxist fiscal policy. I know I am.
Our political parties act like they are in a remake of Brewsters Millions.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1361385563358695425?s=20
AZ/Oxford (UK)
Pfizer/BioNTech (Germany)
Moderna (USA)
Novavax (USA)
J&J (from Belgium, no?)
Plus there's probably CureVac (Belgium) and Valneva (France) to add to the list, so scientists in the EU have done a reasonable amount of work here.
Edit to add: actually, CureVac is German, isn't it?
The bozos in Tehran sat tight in the end days of Trump, but they are going to push the new administration and test it.
Watch any speech of his on that subject: the eyes pop out, the arms flail, and the spittle flies everywhere. And what he says is utterly barking.
He makes Kinnock's Sheffield Rally look like a Marr on Sunday interview.
But in any independence vote which may follow, the vote for independence will be less than 50%. Just like last time.
Statement from congresswoman describing Jan. 6 Trump call to be admitted to record
https://www.columbian.com/news/2021/feb/13/senate-to-call-herrera-beutler-for-impeachment-testimony/
[This from this Sunday's edition of Herrera-Beutler's home-town newspaper]
"In a series of unexpected twists Saturday morning, the Senate decided against delaying a verdict in the impeachment trial so that they could call Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Battle Ground, as a witness.
Herrera Beutler’s written statement was instead accepted into the trial record.
The decision came after Herrera Beutler described secondhand a phone call that took place on Jan. 6, as a mob stormed the Capitol to try and stop the certification of the presidential election results. According to Herrera Beutler, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House GOP leader, had called then-President Donald Trump to try and convince him to call the rioters off. . . .
Herrera Beutler’s bombshell was originally reported by local media on Jan. 17, tucked into a lengthy interview with the Longview Daily News. She reiterated the recollection of the McCarthy phone call in a Feb. 8 telephone town hall that was ostensibly to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccinations. . . . .
The revelation catapulted the typically low-profile congresswoman into a national spotlight for the second time in a month. The first time came on Jan. 12, when she became the fifth of 10 Republicans to publicly announce that she’d vote to advance an article of impeachment to the Senate. . . .
Her stand on impeachment earned her accolades from many constituents in her moderate district, and political scholars have suggested that it will actually help rather than hurt her 2022 re-election prospects.
The chorus included former congressional challenger and Democrat Carolyn Long, who took to social media on Saturday to praise Herrera Beutler for speaking up during the trial.
“Failing to hold Trump accountable for his part, especially and including during the actual event when he disregarded House Speaker McCarthy’s call for assistance, would set a disastrous precedent for the future,” Long wrote. “Good for her.”
The Clark County Republican Party, however, had condemned Herrera Beutler for her initial impeachment vote. CCRP Chair Joel Mattila said Saturday that the group will likely double down on its censure of the congresswoman at the next central committee meeting on Feb. 23.
“The precinct committee officers will have their voice then and I expect this will only strengthen their resolve to pass a resolution condemning her impeachment vote and now her becoming a star witness for the Democrats in their un-Constitutional impeachment charade,” Mattila said in a text message to The Columbian.
Basically, she was always eurosceptic but saw the community as a way to extend market economics and inhibit socialism here in the UK by regulating it out; in other words, she was pursuing internationalist methods solely for national ends.
Once that illusion became so obviously unsustainable she turned decisively against it, because she ultimately didn't agree with its federalist vision.
> in WA there is no party registration NOR party primary. Instead, voters can vote for any one candidate for US House in the August primary, with the top-two vote-getters advancing (regardless of party) to the general election ballot.
> thus while it's virtually certain that JHB will draw a pro-Trumpsky challenger from the Putinist wing of the Republican Party, she still has a good chance of making it through to the November 2022 ballot, especially IF she gets significant primary support from Democrats and Independent.
> redistricting MAY help JHB; note that in WA it's done by semi-independent commission, plus population growth in Clark Co since 2010 means her current 3rd Congressional District will likely loose some super-GOP turf in eastern (and maybe western) WA.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1361405975383724034
Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine resistance does not?
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.2562
https://twitter.com/NilssonPM/status/1360986331917254658
This is exactly what I was told by an Israeli client last week
I (very) occasionally do insulin in my calf if I need it to act a few minutes quicker than normal subcutaneous injections.