After a simply gloriously sunny day yesterday, rain and wind here today. A reminder that spring weather is unreliable and often far too cold to be outside for any prolonged period, especially in the evening, and in most of the country.
Very few beer gardens are going to open on the earliest possible date because it is hard to do so profitably during a month when in large parts of the country the weather is often poor and unreliable, which makes planning and ordering stock difficult. Remember also that if you have a tent with sides in the garden it cannot be used as it is classed as "inside space". If it open at the sides then who is going to want to sit in there in the evening open to the elements in April in many parts of the country?
What would be more useful is allowing takeaway alcohol sales for, gasp, pubs which have been prohibited from doing so, even though off licences and supermarkets have been allowed to.
Also important in the general rejoicing is to know what is to happen to the support offered to hospitality because currently it is to stop well before venues are allowed to open properly.
More than a week's notice is needed for opening. Breweries have already said that they will need 2-3 weeks notice to start operations so don't be surprised to find many places not opening until the end of May/ early June. From mid-February until then is a way to go without income and with support significantly less than fixed costs.
But at least there is a plan and the recognition that zero-Covid is unachievable is a welcome dose of realism.
Very few restaurants, if any, will find it viable to open up to serve people outside in April in the UK. It's virtually pointless, we are not in the South of France or the Algarve (unfortunately)
Wrong. Plenty down here will open.
How many people can the average restaurant seat outside? Enough to make it worthwhile opening? I doubt it and that's before you factor in the rain and howling gales.
Howling gales being while not unknown decidedly uncommon in the South East of England.
As for rain, it's one of the driest regions in Europe.
There are plenty of places down here that can and will open. Not all by any means, but plenty.
A million miles away from your "very few, if any" claim. You will be proved very wrong about that.
Certainly where I live the average restaurant has about 10% of its seating outside at best. How does that make it viable to open?
The only restaurants that are likely to open around us are pubs with large beer gardens which is fine if you don't mind booking a table in advance and hope its not raining. Even then there are only 2 or 3 of those in the city centre.
"There’s a UK ZeroCovid chapter, which last month hosted its own well-attended online conference; the Scottish government is committed to their campaign, alongside Independent SAGE, British trade unions and Labour MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. Meanwhile, influential Tory MPs like Jeremy Hunt advocate a strategy of “zero infections and elimination of the disease” and routinely refer to the Asian model. Google search results in the UK and US for “ZeroCovid” are at an all-time high. The campaign has momentum."
Spare us...
The fact that a few people are searching it, and a few has-beens like Corbyn and Abbott support it != momentum.
Given that the Roadmap has cross-partisan support, the Zero Covid fantasists will not prevail.
I thought those were supposed to be the key variables of when the infection subsides? So it's October, November, December, January, or February depending on which country you're looking at, right? And it comes and goes away, as well - for example, Czechia (negligible vaccination so far) has had seasonal increasing happening in October, seasonal decreasing happening in November, seasonal increasing in December, decreasing in January, and now increasing again in February.
While here, we've had a marvellous summer from (checks dates) early January. Looking warmer and better than the summer we had in November after that unpleasant winter in September and October...
Lockdown helps a lot locally. Globally there is little or no seasonal effect. If Topping is right about Farr's Law, suggesting the virus rips through populations until it starts to find it hard to find bodies to infect, then globally the acute phase of the pandemic peaked on 11-13 January and should be coming to an end at the end of this calendar year - or thereabouts.
The problem with that theory is that places with the worst bouts of infection in 2020 (like Northern Italy, where it was absolutely brutal), should have done much, much better this year.
But if you look at the numbers for Lombardy, it did more than twice as badly as the rest of Italy in 2020, and then no better in 2021. So, why shouldn't the rest of Italy not still have a terrible experience to come? (Assuming Farr's law is correct?)
(Lombardy's cumulative cases and deaths per 100k people are still more than twice the Italian average, so 90% of Italy - on a straight 'herd immunity basis' - can't be more than half way there. In a best case scenario.)
More from the Zero Covid article I posted just now:
"David Rennie, Beijing bureau chief of The Economist, recently gave an astonishingly candid account of current ZeroCovid life in the Chinese capital:
“China’s strategy, from the start, was to have no infections at all… Still in Beijing, where we have hardly any cases, every time you step outside your door you have to use a smartphone to scan a QR code — every shop, every taxi, every bus, every metro station. You have no privacy at all — it’s all built around this electronic system of contact tracing. To leave Beijing you have to have a Covid test, to come back in you have to have a Covid test…. We basically don’t have the virus here, but the flip side is that they are keeping this place locked down as tight as a drum… It’s very hard to know where Covid containment starts and a Communist police state with an obsession with control kicks in.” "
Welcome to your future, courtesy of the, ahem, tories.
Made me chuckle....while ranting about why isn't Starmer standing up, why aren't the normal people standing up to this corrupt evil government, they show a clip of what I presume he wants it to be for "us" to be getting together and demanding change...by showing a clip of wokerity people no appaulding, rather doing the jazz hands, the sort of people who have a badge with their pronouns on like It, Z and They...I can't see Stoke man having much in common with those type of people and there in lies the problem for the Corbynista rip it all up and start again.
That still at first glance looks like a gritty new detective drama "Tonight, on BBC1, Monibot & Starmer, one's a mild mannered centrist, the other a firebrand radical. Together they get results".
The last 4 words . . . shurely shome mishtake?
Look, they may not be the results that were hoped for, but they were definitely results.
I'd love to know who flagged that as off-topic.
That's showing some serious balls.
I could just wait and see who gets banned...
I'm sure @MaxPB meant to hit "like", but mispressed. Right @MaxPB???
What I don't quite understand, but no doubt our Scottish legal experts can explain, is what is to stop Alex Salmond appearing at the inquiry and repeating what he said in his now-censored written evidence (which anyone interested has already read anyway)? After all, the High Court have said they're cool with it being published, so what's to stop him repeating it?
Well the implication from Crown Office is that giving evidence in those terms would be a contempt of court and that they would prosecute it. Being prosecuted in the High Court is a very serious matter and not something to be risked if you can avoid it.
Lady Dorrian made it clear that the purpose of her order was to protect the identity of the complainers who gave evidence at the trial, not to interfere with the decision of the Committee but Crown Office are claiming that the redacted material does facilitate that.
I have been trying to think why. I have a theory but its no more than speculation and I am not going to share it on a public site.
That one of the alleged victims, or someone very close to them, attended one of the meetings in the redacted paragraph in a professional capacity?
The Scotsman reports "It followed the Crown Office writing to the SPCB on Monday night expressing “grave concerns” around the legality of the submission and the potential for jigsaw identification of complainers in Mr Salmond’s criminal trial."
I have read the unredacted version. The accusation is just absurd. The complainers are barely mentioned. Their complaints are not mentioned at all. It is about whether Sturgeon breached the code by lying to Parliament about various meetings and assurances given to Salmond himself.
Why do you think the SPCB has taken the action of withdrawing and redacting Salmond's submission? Have the 2 SLabbers, 1 SLD, 1 SCon, and Wightman been bullied into by the single SNP member?
No they are being bullied/taking the advice of Crown Office. Whether that advice is correct or not....
Poor browbeaten Jackson Carlaw, he's been so mouthy* on this issue up to now...
After a simply gloriously sunny day yesterday, rain and wind here today. A reminder that spring weather is unreliable and often far too cold to be outside for any prolonged period, especially in the evening, and in most of the country.
Very few beer gardens are going to open on the earliest possible date because it is hard to do so profitably during a month when in large parts of the country the weather is often poor and unreliable, which makes planning and ordering stock difficult. Remember also that if you have a tent with sides in the garden it cannot be used as it is classed as "inside space". If it open at the sides then who is going to want to sit in there in the evening open to the elements in April in many parts of the country?
What would be more useful is allowing takeaway alcohol sales for, gasp, pubs which have been prohibited from doing so, even though off licences and supermarkets have been allowed to.
Also important in the general rejoicing is to know what is to happen to the support offered to hospitality because currently it is to stop well before venues are allowed to open properly.
More than a week's notice is needed for opening. Breweries have already said that they will need 2-3 weeks notice to start operations so don't be surprised to find many places not opening until the end of May/ early June. From mid-February until then is a way to go without income and with support significantly less than fixed costs.
But at least there is a plan and the recognition that zero-Covid is unachievable is a welcome dose of realism.
Very few restaurants, if any, will find it viable to open up to serve people outside in April in the UK. It's virtually pointless, we are not in the South of France or the Algarve (unfortunately)
Wrong. Plenty down here will open.
How many people can the average restaurant seat outside? Enough to make it worthwhile opening? I doubt it and that's before you factor in the rain and howling gales.
Howling gales being while not unknown decidedly uncommon in the South East of England.
As for rain, it's one of the driest regions in Europe.
There are plenty of places down here that can and will open. Not all by any means, but plenty.
A million miles away from your "very few, if any" claim. You will be proved very wrong about that.
Certainly where I live the average restaurant has about 10% of its seating outside at best. How does that make it viable to open? The only restaurants that are likely will open around us are pubs with large beer gardens if you don't mind booking a table in advance and hope its not raining
I have no idea where you live. If you are in the North West then maybe you are right in terms of your local region. But it's a very, very different climate to South East England.
"There’s a UK ZeroCovid chapter, which last month hosted its own well-attended online conference; the Scottish government is committed to their campaign, alongside Independent SAGE, British trade unions and Labour MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. Meanwhile, influential Tory MPs like Jeremy Hunt advocate a strategy of “zero infections and elimination of the disease” and routinely refer to the Asian model. Google search results in the UK and US for “ZeroCovid” are at an all-time high. The campaign has momentum."
Spare us...
The fact that a few people are searching it, and a few has-beens like Corbyn and Abbott support it != momentum.
Given that the Roadmap has cross-partisan support, the Zero Covid fantasists will not prevail.
Let's hope so. But see the posting about Scotland a couple of posts further down.
More from the Zero Covid article I posted just now:
"David Rennie, Beijing bureau chief of The Economist, recently gave an astonishingly candid account of current ZeroCovid life in the Chinese capital:
“China’s strategy, from the start, was to have no infections at all… Still in Beijing, where we have hardly any cases, every time you step outside your door you have to use a smartphone to scan a QR code — every shop, every taxi, every bus, every metro station. You have no privacy at all — it’s all built around this electronic system of contact tracing. To leave Beijing you have to have a Covid test, to come back in you have to have a Covid test…. We basically don’t have the virus here, but the flip side is that they are keeping this place locked down as tight as a drum… It’s very hard to know where Covid containment starts and a Communist police state with an obsession with control kicks in.” "
Welcome to your future, courtesy of the, ahem, tories.
Nah, the Tories will never release us from lockdown in the first place. I know that because a very smart chap told me so.
"It’s very hard to know where Covid containment starts and a Communist police state with an obsession with control kicks in.”
Report from China discussed in the unherd article.
No you don't understand. Your government doesn't want to keep you in lockdown A MINUTE longer than necessary. Not one single minute.
Because governments and their sidekicks do not like having all this power for themselves. Philip Thompson says so.
I remember when you posted with absolute certainty that the Covid regulations would never be lifted because the scientists and politicians loved the power.
After a simply gloriously sunny day yesterday, rain and wind here today. A reminder that spring weather is unreliable and often far too cold to be outside for any prolonged period, especially in the evening, and in most of the country.
Very few beer gardens are going to open on the earliest possible date because it is hard to do so profitably during a month when in large parts of the country the weather is often poor and unreliable, which makes planning and ordering stock difficult. Remember also that if you have a tent with sides in the garden it cannot be used as it is classed as "inside space". If it open at the sides then who is going to want to sit in there in the evening open to the elements in April in many parts of the country?
What would be more useful is allowing takeaway alcohol sales for, gasp, pubs which have been prohibited from doing so, even though off licences and supermarkets have been allowed to.
Also important in the general rejoicing is to know what is to happen to the support offered to hospitality because currently it is to stop well before venues are allowed to open properly.
More than a week's notice is needed for opening. Breweries have already said that they will need 2-3 weeks notice to start operations so don't be surprised to find many places not opening until the end of May/ early June. From mid-February until then is a way to go without income and with support significantly less than fixed costs.
But at least there is a plan and the recognition that zero-Covid is unachievable is a welcome dose of realism.
Very few restaurants, if any, will find it viable to open up to serve people outside in April in the UK. It's virtually pointless, we are not in the South of France or the Algarve (unfortunately)
Wrong. Plenty down here will open.
How many people can the average restaurant seat outside? Enough to make it worthwhile opening? I doubt it and that's before you factor in the rain and howling gales.
Most restaurants are also doing delivery/takeout too, though, so this is probably incremental revenues.
Made me chuckle....while ranting about why isn't Starmer standing up, why aren't the normal people standing up to this corrupt evil government, they show a clip of what I presume he wants it to be for "us" to be getting together and demanding change...by showing a clip of wokerity people no appaulding, rather doing the jazz hands, the sort of people who have a badge with their pronouns on like It, Z and They...I can't see Stoke man having much in common with those type of people and there in lies the problem for the Corbynista rip it all up and start again.
That still at first glance looks like a gritty new detective drama "Tonight, on BBC1, Monibot & Starmer, one's a mild mannered centrist, the other a firebrand radical. Together they get results".
The last 4 words . . . shurely shome mishtake?
Look, they may not be the results that were hoped for, but they were definitely results.
I'd love to know who flagged that as off-topic.
That's showing some serious balls.
I could just wait and see who gets banned...
I'm sure @MaxPB meant to hit "like", but mispressed. Right @MaxPB???
No, I definitely meant it. What did I mark as off topic again?!
What I don't quite understand, but no doubt our Scottish legal experts can explain, is what is to stop Alex Salmond appearing at the inquiry and repeating what he said in his now-censored written evidence (which anyone interested has already read anyway)? After all, the High Court have said they're cool with it being published, so what's to stop him repeating it?
Well the implication from Crown Office is that giving evidence in those terms would be a contempt of court and that they would prosecute it. Being prosecuted in the High Court is a very serious matter and not something to be risked if you can avoid it.
Lady Dorrian made it clear that the purpose of her order was to protect the identity of the complainers who gave evidence at the trial, not to interfere with the decision of the Committee but Crown Office are claiming that the redacted material does facilitate that.
I have been trying to think why. I have a theory but its no more than speculation and I am not going to share it on a public site.
But how can it be in contempt of court if the court has said it's OK? That's the bit I don't understand. The opinion of the Crown Office is surely irrelevant.
The Court did not say it was ok. What the Judge said was that the order meant what it said, that it prevented the identification of the complainers in the context of the trial. She did not expressly say that that meant it was ok for them to be identified in another context or for another purpose even although the QC for the Spectator asked her to do so.
In fairness to her this is because there is a lack of clear authority on this. I cannot recall a criminal trial in Scotland that generated anything like this amount of interest after the event, certainly not a sexual trial which has special rules. I find the fact that a trial took place being used to prevent exploration of whether there was a conspiracy to concoct evidence for the trial concerning. I have no idea whether Salmond's allegations are true in that respect but there are certainly a number of things that seemed to have happened that are surprising.
Made me chuckle....while ranting about why isn't Starmer standing up, why aren't the normal people standing up to this corrupt evil government, they show a clip of what I presume he wants it to be for "us" to be getting together and demanding change...by showing a clip of wokerity people no appaulding, rather doing the jazz hands, the sort of people who have a badge with their pronouns on like It, Z and They...I can't see Stoke man having much in common with those type of people and there in lies the problem for the Corbynista rip it all up and start again.
That still at first glance looks like a gritty new detective drama "Tonight, on BBC1, Monibot & Starmer, one's a mild mannered centrist, the other a firebrand radical. Together they get results".
The last 4 words . . . shurely shome mishtake?
Look, they may not be the results that were hoped for, but they were definitely results.
I'd love to know who flagged that as off-topic.
That's showing some serious balls.
I could just wait and see who gets banned...
I'm sure @MaxPB meant to hit "like", but mispressed. Right @MaxPB???
No, I definitely meant it. What did I mark as off topic again?!
Question for the legal experts on here. Could Salmond take out a High Court injunction to force the Scottish Government / Crown Office to allow him to submit his evidence?
What I don't quite understand, but no doubt our Scottish legal experts can explain, is what is to stop Alex Salmond appearing at the inquiry and repeating what he said in his now-censored written evidence (which anyone interested has already read anyway)? After all, the High Court have said they're cool with it being published, so what's to stop him repeating it?
Well the implication from Crown Office is that giving evidence in those terms would be a contempt of court and that they would prosecute it. Being prosecuted in the High Court is a very serious matter and not something to be risked if you can avoid it.
Lady Dorrian made it clear that the purpose of her order was to protect the identity of the complainers who gave evidence at the trial, not to interfere with the decision of the Committee but Crown Office are claiming that the redacted material does facilitate that.
I have been trying to think why. I have a theory but its no more than speculation and I am not going to share it on a public site.
That one of the alleged victims, or someone very close to them, attended one of the meetings in the redacted paragraph in a professional capacity?
Trying to unpack my thoughts on the conundrum of Net Satisfaction vs Gross Positives. I wonder, is turnout factored in to the Leader Ratings? If not, I think there is a good case as to why NS is a poorer indicator than GP
Sir Keir is said to be the more likeable, because his "net like" is three points higher than that of Boris. To me this seems absurd, because more people said they liked Boris (45-36), Sir Keir only wins because he is allocated 50% of those who neither know nor care. Maybe those who neither know nor care are unlikely to vote, and if this is filtered into the numbers, I think it is a different story.
I am assuming turnout of 70% as a rough guide for when my "Turnout tweak" button is pushed.
For Boris, 85% of voters have made their mind up about him. I would say a large percentage of the 45 who like him can be thought of as pretty certain to vote for him (I have allowed 10% margin for people who say they like both leaders, but this could be way off the mark) giving Boris a max score of 45 and a min of 40.5. The non voters would be the 15 who don't know and 15 of those who dislike him
In Sir Keir's case, only 64% of voters have made up their minds about him. It seems that people infer this means 36% of votes are up for grabs. But, as only 70% of people vote, and those without a strong opinion must be less inclined to be voters, only 6% are realistically available to him. So I give him a max vote of 39% (His 36 + half of the undecided's once the turnout tweak button is pushed) and a minimum of 32.4% (his 36% less the 10% who may like both he and Boris)
I think it's complicated.
I think for some leaders - like Corbyn - their negatives really matter, and therefore net is a better judge of how he will do than gross. Had I been in the UK, I would have dragged my sorry ass down to the polling station to ensure he wasn't Prime Minister, and who I voted for wouldn't matter. Corbyn's negatives really mattered. (As in, it doesn't matter if 40% of people love you, if the other 60% will go out and vote against you.)
But in the case of Starmer, I think you're broadly right. People aren't that enthused. That being said... I wouldn't vote against Starmer, either. So while his lack of positives (relative to Boris) is an issue, he will probably benefit from less tactical voting against Labour.
My point really is that 30% of people don't vote, and so when
45 positive 40 negative 15 DK (+5)
plays
36 positive 28 negative 28 DK, (+8)
The (+5) and (+8 ) are red herrings, & its more likely to be (+28) vs (+12) when non voters are filtered out
45/70=64 & 40/70=36 for Boris 36/70=51 & 28/70=40 for Sir Keir rounded up to 56 & 44 by *1.09 to make the sum (91) up to 100
"essentially 100% at preventing hospitalizations/deaths once they've kicked in"
Get the under 50s going to 24/7 J&J jab centres.....through April. Huge.
This chap's an American medic. Even if they're ahead of schedule on production then do we know how much, if any, of it is going to find its way to Britain?
The Scotsman reports "It followed the Crown Office writing to the SPCB on Monday night expressing “grave concerns” around the legality of the submission and the potential for jigsaw identification of complainers in Mr Salmond’s criminal trial."
I have read the unredacted version. The accusation is just absurd. The complainers are barely mentioned. Their complaints are not mentioned at all. It is about whether Sturgeon breached the code by lying to Parliament about various meetings and assurances given to Salmond himself.
Why do you think the SPCB has taken the action of withdrawing and redacting Salmond's submission? Have the 2 SLabbers, 1 SLD, 1 SCon, and Wightman been bullied into by the single SNP member?
No they are being bullied/taking the advice of Crown Office. Whether that advice is correct or not....
Poor browbeaten Jackson Carlaw, he's been so mouthy* on this issue up to now...
Politico.com - Perdue rules out Georgia Senate comeback in 2022 The decision comes just a week after Perdue said publicly that he was considering another campaign in 2022.
Former Republican Sen. David Perdue will not run for Senate in 2022, he said in a statement Tuesday, ruling out another campaign in Georgia less than two months after losing a runoff election for a second term.
The decision comes just a week after Perdue filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and said publicly that he was considering another campaign in 2022. Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock, who won a special election against former GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler in January, is on the ballot again next year for a full term.
"This is a personal decision, not a political one," Perdue said in the statement announcing that he would not run. "I am confident that whoever wins the Republican primary next year will defeat the Democrat candidate in the General election for this seat, and I will do everything I can to make that happen."
Perdue lost to now-Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff by a percentage point in January as Warnock defeated Loeffler. Ossoff won a full six-year term, while Warnock won the race to fill the remainder of former Sen. Johnny Isakson's term. Georgia is one of Republicans' top targets as they seek to win back the Senate majority in 2022.
Loeffler has said that she is considering another campaign, and she started a new political organization this week aimed to help boost Republicans in the state. Former Rep. Doug Collins, who came in third place in November in the Senate special election, has also said that he's considering challenging Warnock next year.
Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?
Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?
I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
Trying to unpack my thoughts on the conundrum of Net Satisfaction vs Gross Positives. I wonder, is turnout factored in to the Leader Ratings? If not, I think there is a good case as to why NS is a poorer indicator than GP
Sir Keir is said to be the more likeable, because his "net like" is three points higher than that of Boris. To me this seems absurd, because more people said they liked Boris (45-36), Sir Keir only wins because he is allocated 50% of those who neither know nor care. Maybe those who neither know nor care are unlikely to vote, and if this is filtered into the numbers, I think it is a different story.
I am assuming turnout of 70% as a rough guide for when my "Turnout tweak" button is pushed.
For Boris, 85% of voters have made their mind up about him. I would say a large percentage of the 45 who like him can be thought of as pretty certain to vote for him (I have allowed 10% margin for people who say they like both leaders, but this could be way off the mark) giving Boris a max score of 45 and a min of 40.5. The non voters would be the 15 who don't know and 15 of those who dislike him
In Sir Keir's case, only 64% of voters have made up their minds about him. It seems that people infer this means 36% of votes are up for grabs. But, as only 70% of people vote, and those without a strong opinion must be less inclined to be voters, only 6% are realistically available to him. So I give him a max vote of 39% (His 36 + half of the undecided's once the turnout tweak button is pushed) and a minimum of 32.4% (his 36% less the 10% who may like both he and Boris)
I think it's complicated.
I think for some leaders - like Corbyn - their negatives really matter, and therefore net is a better judge of how he will do than gross. Had I been in the UK, I would have dragged my sorry ass down to the polling station to ensure he wasn't Prime Minister, and who I voted for wouldn't matter. Corbyn's negatives really mattered. (As in, it doesn't matter if 40% of people love you, if the other 60% will go out and vote against you.)
But in the case of Starmer, I think you're broadly right. People aren't that enthused. That being said... I wouldn't vote against Starmer, either. So while his lack of positives (relative to Boris) is an issue, he will probably benefit from less tactical voting against Labour.
My point really is that 30% of people don't vote, and so when
45 positive 40 negative 15 DK (+5)
plays
36 positive 28 negative 28 DK, (+8)
The (+5) and (+8 ) are red herrings, & its more likely to be (+28) vs (+12) when non voters are filtered out
45/70=64 & 40/70=36 for Boris 36/70=51 & 28/70=40 for Sir Keir rounded up to 56 & 44 by *1.09 to make the sum (91) up to 100
bib 25 not 40
Perhaps the best way to use leader ratings as a guide is to divide the gross positives by 70, and if pos+neg doesn't make 70, as in Starmers case, allocating the difference in line with the repsondents who did have an opinon
Any old excuse to shut the border with England .......
To all the tourists looking for a domestic holiday once the vaccinations are done.
Note to English tourists. Domestic holidays don’t include Scotland, so book in the Lakes instead, and go to Cyclefree’s daughter’s pub.
Millom's just within a day trip from here. Was thinking of heading on up when lockdown eases.
Awesome! I’m hoping to get back to see my parents (after two years) if the quarantine isn’t too bad over the summer. Will definitely take wifey for a tour around the nice bits of the country for a few days, and arrange a stop there. Lovely part of the world.
The Scotsman reports "It followed the Crown Office writing to the SPCB on Monday night expressing “grave concerns” around the legality of the submission and the potential for jigsaw identification of complainers in Mr Salmond’s criminal trial."
I have read the unredacted version. The accusation is just absurd. The complainers are barely mentioned. Their complaints are not mentioned at all. It is about whether Sturgeon breached the code by lying to Parliament about various meetings and assurances given to Salmond himself.
Why do you think the SPCB has taken the action of withdrawing and redacting Salmond's submission? Have the 2 SLabbers, 1 SLD, 1 SCon, and Wightman been bullied into by the single SNP member?
No they are being bullied/taking the advice of Crown Office. Whether that advice is correct or not....
Poor browbeaten Jackson Carlaw, he's been so mouthy* on this issue up to now...
*sorry, courageous
He may be in a minority of course.
Since part of his remit on the SPCB is legal services, that would be unfortunate.
After a simply gloriously sunny day yesterday, rain and wind here today. A reminder that spring weather is unreliable and often far too cold to be outside for any prolonged period, especially in the evening, and in most of the country.
Very few beer gardens are going to open on the earliest possible date because it is hard to do so profitably during a month when in large parts of the country the weather is often poor and unreliable, which makes planning and ordering stock difficult. Remember also that if you have a tent with sides in the garden it cannot be used as it is classed as "inside space". If it open at the sides then who is going to want to sit in there in the evening open to the elements in April in many parts of the country?
What would be more useful is allowing takeaway alcohol sales for, gasp, pubs which have been prohibited from doing so, even though off licences and supermarkets have been allowed to.
Also important in the general rejoicing is to know what is to happen to the support offered to hospitality because currently it is to stop well before venues are allowed to open properly.
More than a week's notice is needed for opening. Breweries have already said that they will need 2-3 weeks notice to start operations so don't be surprised to find many places not opening until the end of May/ early June. From mid-February until then is a way to go without income and with support significantly less than fixed costs.
But at least there is a plan and the recognition that zero-Covid is unachievable is a welcome dose of realism.
Very few restaurants, if any, will find it viable to open up to serve people outside in April in the UK. It's virtually pointless, we are not in the South of France or the Algarve (unfortunately)
Wrong. Plenty down here will open.
How many people can the average restaurant seat outside? Enough to make it worthwhile opening? I doubt it and that's before you factor in the rain and howling gales.
Howling gales being while not unknown decidedly uncommon in the South East of England.
As for rain, it's one of the driest regions in Europe.
There are plenty of places down here that can and will open. Not all by any means, but plenty.
A million miles away from your "very few, if any" claim. You will be proved very wrong about that.
Certainly where I live the average restaurant has about 10% of its seating outside at best. How does that make it viable to open? The only restaurants that are likely will open around us are pubs with large beer gardens if you don't mind booking a table in advance and hope its not raining
I have no idea where you live. If you are in the North West then maybe you are right in terms of your local region. But it's a very, very different climate to South East England.
North West England != England.
You may be right but I lived in central London for 30 years and am struggling to think of any restaurant I frequented that had more than 10% of their tables outside. You cannot run a viable business on a maximum of 10% of capacity.
Trying to unpack my thoughts on the conundrum of Net Satisfaction vs Gross Positives. I wonder, is turnout factored in to the Leader Ratings? If not, I think there is a good case as to why NS is a poorer indicator than GP
Sir Keir is said to be the more likeable, because his "net like" is three points higher than that of Boris. To me this seems absurd, because more people said they liked Boris (45-36), Sir Keir only wins because he is allocated 50% of those who neither know nor care. Maybe those who neither know nor care are unlikely to vote, and if this is filtered into the numbers, I think it is a different story.
I am assuming turnout of 70% as a rough guide for when my "Turnout tweak" button is pushed.
For Boris, 85% of voters have made their mind up about him. I would say a large percentage of the 45 who like him can be thought of as pretty certain to vote for him (I have allowed 10% margin for people who say they like both leaders, but this could be way off the mark) giving Boris a max score of 45 and a min of 40.5. The non voters would be the 15 who don't know and 15 of those who dislike him
In Sir Keir's case, only 64% of voters have made up their minds about him. It seems that people infer this means 36% of votes are up for grabs. But, as only 70% of people vote, and those without a strong opinion must be less inclined to be voters, only 6% are realistically available to him. So I give him a max vote of 39% (His 36 + half of the undecided's once the turnout tweak button is pushed) and a minimum of 32.4% (his 36% less the 10% who may like both he and Boris)
I think it's complicated.
I think for some leaders - like Corbyn - their negatives really matter, and therefore net is a better judge of how he will do than gross. Had I been in the UK, I would have dragged my sorry ass down to the polling station to ensure he wasn't Prime Minister, and who I voted for wouldn't matter. Corbyn's negatives really mattered. (As in, it doesn't matter if 40% of people love you, if the other 60% will go out and vote against you.)
But in the case of Starmer, I think you're broadly right. People aren't that enthused. That being said... I wouldn't vote against Starmer, either. So while his lack of positives (relative to Boris) is an issue, he will probably benefit from less tactical voting against Labour.
You're all overanalysing. Net figures are what matters, full stop, balancing out positive and negative opinions. You may refine that a bit by looking at strength of approval both ways. Anything beyond that is highly subjective. All that you can say from a lot of DKs or Neithers is that a lot of people have yet to make up their minds or may not even be aware of the person, so opinion could shift more one way or another if they do.
Regardless, I am content that at the next general election, the Labour leader is not going to have his face plastered all over or even mentioned on Conservative Party leaflets, the first time that has happened for quite a while. How Starmer compares with the Conservative leader depends on a lot of things, not least who is the Conservative leader. Whether Labour is in contention depends mainly on whether Starmer can convince the public that he has done enough to change the party in his image.
"There’s a UK ZeroCovid chapter, which last month hosted its own well-attended online conference; the Scottish government is committed to their campaign, alongside Independent SAGE, British trade unions and Labour MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. Meanwhile, influential Tory MPs like Jeremy Hunt advocate a strategy of “zero infections and elimination of the disease” and routinely refer to the Asian model. Google search results in the UK and US for “ZeroCovid” are at an all-time high. The campaign has momentum."
Point of order: Jeremy Corbyn is not currently a Labour MP.
That sounds like what someone from the JCVI said about the Pfizer and AstraZenaca vaccines. Trials necessarily look at efficacy amongst a population less at risk of hospitalisation and death, and so to some extent misrepresent the real benefit of the vaccine, that is saving the lives of the frail. When you use a vaccine on a normal population you see the real benefit of stopping serious disease, and you get the "spectacular" results. On that basis almost all the COVID-19 vaccines are excellent, even if there is some variation in absolute efficacy.
"There’s a UK ZeroCovid chapter, which last month hosted its own well-attended online conference; the Scottish government is committed to their campaign, alongside Independent SAGE, British trade unions and Labour MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. Meanwhile, influential Tory MPs like Jeremy Hunt advocate a strategy of “zero infections and elimination of the disease” and routinely refer to the Asian model. Google search results in the UK and US for “ZeroCovid” are at an all-time high. The campaign has momentum."
So two brothers have opposite views on the same subject but also both manage to have lunatic views on the same subject.
Deaths still falling sharply, positive cases, less so:
Today was a good cases number from my perspective. It is 20% lower than last week's number. I had expected it to be higher. Hopefully it isn't an anomaly.
The Court did not say it was ok. What the Judge said was that the order meant what it said, that it prevented the identification of the complainers in the context of the trial. She did not expressly say that that meant it was ok for them to be identified in another context or for another purpose even although the QC for the Spectator asked her to do so.
In fairness to her this is because there is a lack of clear authority on this. I cannot recall a criminal trial in Scotland that generated anything like this amount of interest after the event, certainly not a sexual trial which has special rules. I find the fact that a trial took place being used to prevent exploration of whether there was a conspiracy to concoct evidence for the trial concerning. I have no idea whether Salmond's allegations are true in that respect but there are certainly a number of things that seemed to have happened that are surprising.
Deaths still falling sharply, positive cases, less so:
Today was a good cases number from my perspective. It is 20% lower than last week's number. I had expected it to be higher. Hopefully it isn't an anomaly.
"essentially 100% at preventing hospitalizations/deaths once they've kicked in"
Get the under 50s going to 24/7 J&J jab centres.....through April. Huge.
Are those 20 million doses for us or for the Americans?
All very opaque. Through Janssen (the J&J subsidiary, in case it gets confusing) the US has bought 100m plus an option for 200m more. The UK has 30m bought, the EU 400m more. Janssen/J&J have also have agreed "in principle" to supply 500m doses to Covax.
Who gets what when is anyone's guess. But to the extent that the UK has a place in the queue for early delivery, they will be a brilliant way to get say all public service workers done with a single dose.
I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon will tell us when they are due....
Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?
Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?
I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
Reading the small print in Zero Covid strategies they are remarkably short of specifics. Whether that is because they are afraid of frightening the horses or because there are very few specifics I don't know. It's a policy aim.
The Scotsman reports "It followed the Crown Office writing to the SPCB on Monday night expressing “grave concerns” around the legality of the submission and the potential for jigsaw identification of complainers in Mr Salmond’s criminal trial."
I have read the unredacted version. The accusation is just absurd. The complainers are barely mentioned. Their complaints are not mentioned at all. It is about whether Sturgeon breached the code by lying to Parliament about various meetings and assurances given to Salmond himself.
Why do you think the SPCB has taken the action of withdrawing and redacting Salmond's submission? Have the 2 SLabbers, 1 SLD, 1 SCon, and Wightman been bullied into by the single SNP member?
No they are being bullied/taking the advice of Crown Office. Whether that advice is correct or not....
Poor browbeaten Jackson Carlaw, he's been so mouthy* on this issue up to now...
*sorry, courageous
He may be in a minority of course.
Since part of his remit on the SPCB is legal services, that would be unfortunate.
If you don't think the SPCB has taken advice/been bullied by the Crown Office, I'm interested in what you theory is on why they've agreed with the Crown Office's new redactions. All ears.
Deaths still falling sharply, positive cases, less so:
Today was a good cases number from my perspective. It is 20% lower than last week's number. I had expected it to be higher. Hopefully it isn't an anomaly.
Deaths averaging 444 for the past 7 days. Sub-350 by the end of the week looking distinctly possible. Still a 747 full, but down from 5 of them a few weeks back.
"There’s a UK ZeroCovid chapter, which last month hosted its own well-attended online conference; the Scottish government is committed to their campaign, alongside Independent SAGE, British trade unions and Labour MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. Meanwhile, influential Tory MPs like Jeremy Hunt advocate a strategy of “zero infections and elimination of the disease” and routinely refer to the Asian model. Google search results in the UK and US for “ZeroCovid” are at an all-time high. The campaign has momentum."
Spare us...
The fact that a few people are searching it, and a few has-beens like Corbyn and Abbott support it != momentum.
Given that the Roadmap has cross-partisan support, the Zero Covid fantasists will not prevail.
Let's hope so. But see the posting about Scotland a couple of posts further down.
Very Up North, cross-partisan means Malc in a one-man stooshie...
Trying to unpack my thoughts on the conundrum of Net Satisfaction vs Gross Positives. I wonder, is turnout factored in to the Leader Ratings? If not, I think there is a good case as to why NS is a poorer indicator than GP
Sir Keir is said to be the more likeable, because his "net like" is three points higher than that of Boris. To me this seems absurd, because more people said they liked Boris (45-36), Sir Keir only wins because he is allocated 50% of those who neither know nor care. Maybe those who neither know nor care are unlikely to vote, and if this is filtered into the numbers, I think it is a different story.
I am assuming turnout of 70% as a rough guide for when my "Turnout tweak" button is pushed.
For Boris, 85% of voters have made their mind up about him. I would say a large percentage of the 45 who like him can be thought of as pretty certain to vote for him (I have allowed 10% margin for people who say they like both leaders, but this could be way off the mark) giving Boris a max score of 45 and a min of 40.5. The non voters would be the 15 who don't know and 15 of those who dislike him
In Sir Keir's case, only 64% of voters have made up their minds about him. It seems that people infer this means 36% of votes are up for grabs. But, as only 70% of people vote, and those without a strong opinion must be less inclined to be voters, only 6% are realistically available to him. So I give him a max vote of 39% (His 36 + half of the undecided's once the turnout tweak button is pushed) and a minimum of 32.4% (his 36% less the 10% who may like both he and Boris)
I think it's complicated.
I think for some leaders - like Corbyn - their negatives really matter, and therefore net is a better judge of how he will do than gross. Had I been in the UK, I would have dragged my sorry ass down to the polling station to ensure he wasn't Prime Minister, and who I voted for wouldn't matter. Corbyn's negatives really mattered. (As in, it doesn't matter if 40% of people love you, if the other 60% will go out and vote against you.)
But in the case of Starmer, I think you're broadly right. People aren't that enthused. That being said... I wouldn't vote against Starmer, either. So while his lack of positives (relative to Boris) is an issue, he will probably benefit from less tactical voting against Labour.
You're all overanalysing. Net figures are what matters, full stop, balancing out positive and negative opinions. You may refine that a bit by looking at strength of approval both ways. Anything beyond that is highly subjective. All that you can say from a lot of DKs or Neithers is that a lot of people have yet to make up their minds or may not even be aware of the person, so opinion could shift more one way or another if they do.
Regardless, I am content that at the next general election, the Labour leader is not going to have his face plastered all over or even mentioned on Conservative Party leaflets, the first time that has happened for quite a while. How Starmer compares with the Conservative leader depends on a lot of things, not least who is the Conservative leader. Whether Labour is in contention depends mainly on whether Starmer can convince the public that he has done enough to change the party in his image.
Why factor in the 30% of people who don't vote?
Net figures say Sir Keir is rated as more likeable by the public than Boris. That is absurd, and shows why they are wrong
It is truly pathetic. Difference for differences sake.
When things are going really well is the time to be in lock-step with Boris. By the May elections, any differences could be really stark. Dumb politics.
Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?
Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?
I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.
As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.
Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.
"There’s a UK ZeroCovid chapter, which last month hosted its own well-attended online conference; the Scottish government is committed to their campaign, alongside Independent SAGE, British trade unions and Labour MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. Meanwhile, influential Tory MPs like Jeremy Hunt advocate a strategy of “zero infections and elimination of the disease” and routinely refer to the Asian model. Google search results in the UK and US for “ZeroCovid” are at an all-time high. The campaign has momentum."
Spare us...
The fact that a few people are searching it, and a few has-beens like Corbyn and Abbott support it != momentum.
Given that the Roadmap has cross-partisan support, the Zero Covid fantasists will not prevail.
Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?
Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?
I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.
As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.
Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.
But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.
I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
The Court did not say it was ok. What the Judge said was that the order meant what it said, that it prevented the identification of the complainers in the context of the trial. She did not expressly say that that meant it was ok for them to be identified in another context or for another purpose even although the QC for the Spectator asked her to do so.
In fairness to her this is because there is a lack of clear authority on this. I cannot recall a criminal trial in Scotland that generated anything like this amount of interest after the event, certainly not a sexual trial which has special rules. I find the fact that a trial took place being used to prevent exploration of whether there was a conspiracy to concoct evidence for the trial concerning. I have no idea whether Salmond's allegations are true in that respect but there are certainly a number of things that seemed to have happened that are surprising.
Thanks.
But I thought the bit that is proposed to be redacted from the Holyrood Enguiry was the bit that accused Sturgeon of crookery rather than enabled victim-identification?
Politico.com - Perdue rules out Georgia Senate comeback in 2022 The decision comes just a week after Perdue said publicly that he was considering another campaign in 2022.
Former Republican Sen. David Perdue will not run for Senate in 2022, he said in a statement Tuesday, ruling out another campaign in Georgia less than two months after losing a runoff election for a second term.
The decision comes just a week after Perdue filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and said publicly that he was considering another campaign in 2022. Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock, who won a special election against former GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler in January, is on the ballot again next year for a full term.
"This is a personal decision, not a political one," Perdue said in the statement announcing that he would not run. "I am confident that whoever wins the Republican primary next year will defeat the Democrat candidate in the General election for this seat, and I will do everything I can to make that happen."
Perdue lost to now-Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff by a percentage point in January as Warnock defeated Loeffler. Ossoff won a full six-year term, while Warnock won the race to fill the remainder of former Sen. Johnny Isakson's term. Georgia is one of Republicans' top targets as they seek to win back the Senate majority in 2022.
Loeffler has said that she is considering another campaign, and she started a new political organization this week aimed to help boost Republicans in the state. Former Rep. Doug Collins, who came in third place in November in the Senate special election, has also said that he's considering challenging Warnock next year.
Feels like a mistake by the GOP if they nominate Loeffler or Collins. If they ask the same question again after less than two years, they are inviting the same answer.
I know Republicans may hope 2022 is better than 2020/1 for their party, and Warnock only won by 2%, but he has incumbency now and they need to win over his voters. "WRONG ANSWER - TRY AGAIN" is never a very persuasive campaign message.
The Court did not say it was ok. What the Judge said was that the order meant what it said, that it prevented the identification of the complainers in the context of the trial. She did not expressly say that that meant it was ok for them to be identified in another context or for another purpose even although the QC for the Spectator asked her to do so.
In fairness to her this is because there is a lack of clear authority on this. I cannot recall a criminal trial in Scotland that generated anything like this amount of interest after the event, certainly not a sexual trial which has special rules. I find the fact that a trial took place being used to prevent exploration of whether there was a conspiracy to concoct evidence for the trial concerning. I have no idea whether Salmond's allegations are true in that respect but there are certainly a number of things that seemed to have happened that are surprising.
Thanks.
But I thought the bit that is proposed to be redacted from the Holyrood Enguiry was the bit that accused Sturgeon of crookery rather than enabled victim-identification?
- confused of the East Midlands.
It is indeed a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?
Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?
I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.
As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.
Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.
But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.
I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
Far more international travel then when we were crushing smallpox though. The Bastard Bug has been dealt some aces.
"There’s a UK ZeroCovid chapter, which last month hosted its own well-attended online conference; the Scottish government is committed to their campaign, alongside Independent SAGE, British trade unions and Labour MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. Meanwhile, influential Tory MPs like Jeremy Hunt advocate a strategy of “zero infections and elimination of the disease” and routinely refer to the Asian model. Google search results in the UK and US for “ZeroCovid” are at an all-time high. The campaign has momentum."
Spare us...
The fact that a few people are searching it, and a few has-beens like Corbyn and Abbott support it != momentum.
Given that the Roadmap has cross-partisan support, the Zero Covid fantasists will not prevail.
They are prevailing in Scotland.
Sure, and in NZ (at least for now, I suspect Jacienda will change tack once they get their vax programme sorted) but there's not much you can do about other countries.
Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?
Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?
I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.
As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.
Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.
But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.
I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?
Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?
I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.
As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.
Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.
But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.
I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
AIUI the only reason it was possible to eliminate smallpox in the first place is that the vaccinations were fast acting and effective (and you could always tell when they worked because the injection site erupted in a pustule) and because anyone unlucky enough to be infected with smallpox became seriously ill and erupted all over in pustules.
Covid, by contrast, is not only highly transmissible but also largely asymptomatic (and if symptoms do appear it takes some time for them to do so.)
I don't know, I suppose that it might still be possible to eradicate Covid if were really determined to do so, but it would be a gargantuan effort that would involve years of heavy-handed interventions (including cyclical lockdowns) and a resultant level of socio-economic carnage that populations would not be prepared to tolerate.
It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.
But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.
I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
If the vaccines turn out to be really good at suppressing transmission, and the virus doesn't mutate too frequently for the vaccine manufacturers to keep up, then it may be possible, eventually, to go for a 'zero Covid' state. But it has to be worldwide, or virtually worldwide. It's absolutely bonkers to think that an individual country - especially one like Scotland which isn't an island, and which has large numbers of international connections - can have a 'zero Covid' policy. Even countries like New Zealand have only bought themselves temporary near-zero status. As soon as they eventually open up, they'll no longer be zero-Covid, but they'll be hoping that by then the vaccine programmes will have been effective enough for the disease not to be too damaging.
Presumably Nicola Sturgeon realises all this; she's not daft, after all. So she must be playing politics as usual.
"essentially 100% at preventing hospitalizations/deaths once they've kicked in"
Get the under 50s going to 24/7 J&J jab centres.....through April. Huge.
Are those 20 million doses for us or for the Americans?
Perhaps they are for EU.
Or U...
Does anyone have a list of dates when contracts were signed?
I think the key thing is that such considerations are gradually (and soon rapidly) becoming moot.
If there are only a small number of doses a day being made, where you are in the queue matters a lot- it might take months or years to get to the front of the queue. The faster the production, the less time it takes to get to the front. It's like the difference between a post office with one counter open and one with ten open.
And time is the relevant variable.
(The top story in the Irish edition of the London Times today is the Danish government schedule to have finished their entire vaccination campaign by the end of June, assuming J+J is approved, and some Irish scientist types saying "sure- why not?", with the implication that RoI can do the same sort of thing. May not happen like that, but once the production taps really open, this could all be over surprisingly quickly.)
This week, our data scientists have made some changes to the way we calculate COVID-19 incidence rates and invite people to have a COVID test, to take into account the way that the after effects of vaccination are reported in the app.
This means that our estimates of COVID-19 incidence across the UK and the R number (a measure of how the virus is spreading) have decreased slightly.
Here’s why the numbers needed revision and how we’ve fixed it.
"essentially 100% at preventing hospitalizations/deaths once they've kicked in"
Get the under 50s going to 24/7 J&J jab centres.....through April. Huge.
This chap's an American medic. Even if they're ahead of schedule on production then do we know how much, if any, of it is going to find its way to Britain?
@Charles probably knows better than me, but my understanding is that J&J has multiple factories producing its vaccine, and has also sublicensed production to other firms.
Given that J&J's vaccine unit was originally Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a Belgian firm), my guess is that there is probably some EU manufacturing in there.
This week, our data scientists have made some changes to the way we calculate COVID-19 incidence rates and invite people to have a COVID test, to take into account the way that the after effects of vaccination are reported in the app.
This means that our estimates of COVID-19 incidence across the UK and the R number (a measure of how the virus is spreading) have decreased slightly.
Here’s why the numbers needed revision and how we’ve fixed it.
These changes mean that we have updated our recent calculations of the predicted incidence of COVID-19 in the UK and the R number (a measure of how the virus is spreading), and both numbers have now reduced compared to the old estimates.
Last week, we originally estimated that there were around 14,000 cases of COVID-19 in the UK, and that the R number was creeping up to 1 or rising in some areas. This made us concerned that the rapid fall in cases in response to lockdown and vaccination had stopped.
However, our revised calculations show that there are around 9,000 cases, and that the R value has remained at around 0.9, suggesting a slowing, but still in the right direction.
Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?
Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?
I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.
As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.
Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.
But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.
I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
I would have said from what I know of it that it was more infectious but slightly less lethal. From memory, over 90% of people who contracted smallpox survived it, but it was very easy to get. Breathing the same air as an infected person was almost invariably enough.
The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.
Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
Trying to unpack my thoughts on the conundrum of Net Satisfaction vs Gross Positives. I wonder, is turnout factored in to the Leader Ratings? If not, I think there is a good case as to why NS is a poorer indicator than GP
Sir Keir is said to be the more likeable, because his "net like" is three points higher than that of Boris. To me this seems absurd, because more people said they liked Boris (45-36), Sir Keir only wins because he is allocated 50% of those who neither know nor care. Maybe those who neither know nor care are unlikely to vote, and if this is filtered into the numbers, I think it is a different story.
I am assuming turnout of 70% as a rough guide for when my "Turnout tweak" button is pushed.
For Boris, 85% of voters have made their mind up about him. I would say a large percentage of the 45 who like him can be thought of as pretty certain to vote for him (I have allowed 10% margin for people who say they like both leaders, but this could be way off the mark) giving Boris a max score of 45 and a min of 40.5. The non voters would be the 15 who don't know and 15 of those who dislike him
In Sir Keir's case, only 64% of voters have made up their minds about him. It seems that people infer this means 36% of votes are up for grabs. But, as only 70% of people vote, and those without a strong opinion must be less inclined to be voters, only 6% are realistically available to him. So I give him a max vote of 39% (His 36 + half of the undecided's once the turnout tweak button is pushed) and a minimum of 32.4% (his 36% less the 10% who may like both he and Boris)
I think it's complicated.
I think for some leaders - like Corbyn - their negatives really matter, and therefore net is a better judge of how he will do than gross. Had I been in the UK, I would have dragged my sorry ass down to the polling station to ensure he wasn't Prime Minister, and who I voted for wouldn't matter. Corbyn's negatives really mattered. (As in, it doesn't matter if 40% of people love you, if the other 60% will go out and vote against you.)
But in the case of Starmer, I think you're broadly right. People aren't that enthused. That being said... I wouldn't vote against Starmer, either. So while his lack of positives (relative to Boris) is an issue, he will probably benefit from less tactical voting against Labour.
You're all overanalysing. Net figures are what matters, full stop, balancing out positive and negative opinions. You may refine that a bit by looking at strength of approval both ways. Anything beyond that is highly subjective. All that you can say from a lot of DKs or Neithers is that a lot of people have yet to make up their minds or may not even be aware of the person, so opinion could shift more one way or another if they do.
Regardless, I am content that at the next general election, the Labour leader is not going to have his face plastered all over or even mentioned on Conservative Party leaflets, the first time that has happened for quite a while. How Starmer compares with the Conservative leader depends on a lot of things, not least who is the Conservative leader. Whether Labour is in contention depends mainly on whether Starmer can convince the public that he has done enough to change the party in his image.
Why factor in the 30% of people who don't vote?
Net figures say Sir Keir is rated as more likeable by the public than Boris. That is absurd, and shows why they are wrong
Isn't Johnson just more polarising on "likeability"? Quite a lot of people think Johnson is "hilarious" and "refreshing". Quite a lot of people think he's an arsehole. You hear both these takes from people who aren't massively political.
Starmer, on the other hand, is hard to love and also hard to hate. A lot of people either think he's "alright" or "a bit meh".
Not sure which of those is a better place to be in. But I don't think you should assume, just because Starmer doesn't attract adoring fan-boys, that he's necessarily underwater on likeability - he's just less polarising.
Ditto Trump/Biden in 2020. Trump's disbelief in his own defeat was partly down to the true fact that, even in normal times, Biden was never going to get Trump's level of adoration from obsessed fans. But their votes aren't worth any more than those of people who thought Biden was somewhat dull but competent.
Scotland: it's clear, Sturgeon will ALWAYS put narrow political interest over and above the interests of the people that she is supposed to be leading.
Comments
The only restaurants that are likely to open around us are pubs with large beer gardens which is fine if you don't mind booking a table in advance and hope its not raining. Even then there are only 2 or 3 of those in the city centre.
Given that the Roadmap has cross-partisan support, the Zero Covid fantasists will not prevail.
Report from China discussed in the unherd article.
*sorry, courageous
North West England != England.
Because governments and their sidekicks do not like having all this power for themselves. Philip Thompson says so.
Note to English tourists. Domestic holidays don’t include Scotland, so book in the Lakes instead, and go to Cyclefree’s daughter’s pub.
Thoughts and prayers for you on the 21st of June.
And the Scottish FM would not be aiming for zero Covid if Johnson had said he was.
To be honest I did not read her judgment as clarifying very much. Look for yourself: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj001.pdf?sfvrsn=0
In fairness to her this is because there is a lack of clear authority on this. I cannot recall a criminal trial in Scotland that generated anything like this amount of interest after the event, certainly not a sexual trial which has special rules. I find the fact that a trial took place being used to prevent exploration of whether there was a conspiracy to concoct evidence for the trial concerning. I have no idea whether Salmond's allegations are true in that respect but there are certainly a number of things that seemed to have happened that are surprising.
That RINO cuck George W. Bush did.
Get the under 50s going to 24/7 J&J jab centres.....through April. Huge.
Especially since fans of English lawn play are notoriously resistant to assimilation into US society and norms.
That is, they refuse to "play ball" like good, decent Americans.
"I am GROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT......"
The decision comes just a week after Perdue said publicly that he was considering another campaign in 2022.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/23/perdue-georgia-senate-2022-471131
Former Republican Sen. David Perdue will not run for Senate in 2022, he said in a statement Tuesday, ruling out another campaign in Georgia less than two months after losing a runoff election for a second term.
The decision comes just a week after Perdue filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and said publicly that he was considering another campaign in 2022. Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock, who won a special election against former GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler in January, is on the ballot again next year for a full term.
"This is a personal decision, not a political one," Perdue said in the statement announcing that he would not run. "I am confident that whoever wins the Republican primary next year will defeat the Democrat candidate in the General election for this seat, and I will do everything I can to make that happen."
Perdue lost to now-Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff by a percentage point in January as Warnock defeated Loeffler. Ossoff won a full six-year term, while Warnock won the race to fill the remainder of former Sen. Johnny Isakson's term. Georgia is one of Republicans' top targets as they seek to win back the Senate majority in 2022.
Loeffler has said that she is considering another campaign, and she started a new political organization this week aimed to help boost Republicans in the state. Former Rep. Doug Collins, who came in third place in November in the Senate special election, has also said that he's considering challenging Warnock next year.
Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?
I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
"Wealth of experience"...
https://twitter.com/MerPolWirral/status/1363802799054684164
Regardless, I am content that at the next general election, the Labour leader is not going to have his face plastered all over or even mentioned on Conservative Party leaflets, the first time that has happened for quite a while. How Starmer compares with the Conservative leader depends on a lot of things, not least who is the Conservative leader. Whether Labour is in contention depends mainly on whether Starmer can convince the public that he has done enough to change the party in his image.
Or U...
Does anyone have a list of dates when contracts were signed?
Or shopping paying taxes.
Or on the roads paying taxes.
They do not want you on furlough watching Netflix.
Who gets what when is anyone's guess. But to the extent that the UK has a place in the queue for early delivery, they will be a brilliant way to get say all public service workers done with a single dose.
I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon will tell us when they are due....
SC justices don't "work for" anyone.
Net figures say Sir Keir is rated as more likeable by the public than Boris. That is absurd, and shows why they are wrong
Karma's a bitch...
When things are going really well is the time to be in lock-step with Boris. By the May elections, any differences could be really stark. Dumb politics.
As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.
Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.
Good afternoon, everyone.
But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.
I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
- confused of the East Midlands.
I know Republicans may hope 2022 is better than 2020/1 for their party, and Warnock only won by 2%, but he has incumbency now and they need to win over his voters. "WRONG ANSWER - TRY AGAIN" is never a very persuasive campaign message.
Covid, by contrast, is not only highly transmissible but also largely asymptomatic (and if symptoms do appear it takes some time for them to do so.)
I don't know, I suppose that it might still be possible to eradicate Covid if were really determined to do so, but it would be a gargantuan effort that would involve years of heavy-handed interventions (including cyclical lockdowns) and a resultant level of socio-economic carnage that populations would not be prepared to tolerate.
Last Tuesday: 10,624
Today: 8,489
Same trend would give:
Tuesday 2nd March: 6,783
9th March: 5,420
16th March: 4,331
23rd March: 3,460
30th March: 2,765
6th April: 2,209
13th April: 1,765
20th April: 1,410
27th April: 1,127
4th May: 900
Presumably Nicola Sturgeon realises all this; she's not daft, after all. So she must be playing politics as usual.
If there are only a small number of doses a day being made, where you are in the queue matters a lot- it might take months or years to get to the front of the queue. The faster the production, the less time it takes to get to the front. It's like the difference between a post office with one counter open and one with ten open.
And time is the relevant variable.
(The top story in the Irish edition of the London Times today is the Danish government schedule to have finished their entire vaccination campaign by the end of June, assuming J+J is approved, and some Irish scientist types saying "sure- why not?", with the implication that RoI can do the same sort of thing. May not happen like that, but once the production taps really open, this could all be over surprisingly quickly.)
This week, our data scientists have made some changes to the way we calculate COVID-19 incidence rates and invite people to have a COVID test, to take into account the way that the after effects of vaccination are reported in the app.
This means that our estimates of COVID-19 incidence across the UK and the R number (a measure of how the virus is spreading) have decreased slightly.
Here’s why the numbers needed revision and how we’ve fixed it.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-rates-calculation-changed?mc_cid=8da03653e2&mc_eid=dc4978d054
Given that J&J's vaccine unit was originally Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a Belgian firm), my guess is that there is probably some EU manufacturing in there.
Last week, we originally estimated that there were around 14,000 cases of COVID-19 in the UK, and that the R number was creeping up to 1 or rising in some areas. This made us concerned that the rapid fall in cases in response to lockdown and vaccination had stopped.
However, our revised calculations show that there are around 9,000 cases, and that the R value has remained at around 0.9, suggesting a slowing, but still in the right direction.
The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.
Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
Starmer, on the other hand, is hard to love and also hard to hate. A lot of people either think he's "alright" or "a bit meh".
Not sure which of those is a better place to be in. But I don't think you should assume, just because Starmer doesn't attract adoring fan-boys, that he's necessarily underwater on likeability - he's just less polarising.
Ditto Trump/Biden in 2020. Trump's disbelief in his own defeat was partly down to the true fact that, even in normal times, Biden was never going to get Trump's level of adoration from obsessed fans. But their votes aren't worth any more than those of people who thought Biden was somewhat dull but competent.
from case data
from hospitalisations
That's it - pure and simple.