The updated J&J single-dose vaccine data looks very good - very effective (better than 80%) efficacy from 28 days onwards against severe/critical Covid in all three regions where they ran the trials, including South Africa where most of the cases were the nasty variant version of the virus. Admittedly it's less effective against mild cases, especially in SA (but that's probably the same for the other jabs). Also it seems to work fine in the over-65s (albeit with relatively small sample sizes). It even had fewer adverse reactions than the mRNA jabs.
Looks near-certain to me that the FDA will approve it. It's cheap, single-dose, will be manufactured in large quantities in multiple locations, and doesn't require special refrigeration. This is going to be a major boost to reducing the toll of the virus around the world.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
My media is Times on a Saturday, BBC website, CH4 news, PB.com, podcasts selected quite randomly and with no particular angle, plus Owen Jones twitter and agitprop for modern metro left.
EDIT: And lots of R4 obvs.
Thanks. Not a million miles different between us. And you're of the left - easy to see why people complain of the "right wing media" when those of the left don't primarily, or perhaps at all consume left wing media (OJ, etc aside).
Yep, good point. It's a tricky one. To complain with credibility about the right wing media you must consume some of it. Which is a tough gig. A different and (imo) interesting way to look at the bias is that the crazy left wing stuff like Novara Media is fringe but it's equivalent on the right - the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph etc - is mainstream. This creates advantage for the right. Of course you could say - indeed I think you already have - this simply reflects the balance of people's views but I don't fully buy that. I think it also reinforces them. There's an influence there, insidious and significant.
I don't think Novara is equivalent to the Sun or Telegraph. It's more equivalent to Breitbart.
I'd say the opposite of the Sun and Telegraph are the Mirror and Guardian.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
My media is Times on a Saturday, BBC website, CH4 news, PB.com, podcasts selected quite randomly and with no particular angle, plus Owen Jones twitter and agitprop for modern metro left.
EDIT: And lots of R4 obvs.
Thanks. Not a million miles different between us. And you're of the left - easy to see why people complain of the "right wing media" when those of the left don't primarily, or perhaps at all consume left wing media (OJ, etc aside).
Yep, good point. It's a tricky one. To complain with credibility about the right wing media you must consume some of it. Which is a tough gig. A different and (imo) interesting way to look at the bias is that the crazy left wing stuff like Novara Media is fringe but it's equivalent on the right - the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph etc - is mainstream. This creates advantage for the right. Of course you could say - indeed I think you already have - this simply reflects the balance of people's views but I don't fully buy that. I think it also reinforces them. There's an influence there, insidious and significant.
Ah, that's interesting. I would contend that the Mirror and the Mail are roughly equidistant from the political centre, and their relative readerships are indicative of why Labour struggle to win elections. Ditto the Guardian and the Telegraph.
Would you agree that Novara are clearly further left than the Mirror? In which case, presumably you disagree that the Mirror and the Mail are equivalent (as per the above), or else your previous post makes no sense? Obviously, this relies on simplifying the political spectrum into a one-dimensional scale, but whatever.
Yep. Exactly. The Mirror and Guardian are soft left. The Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Express are (on weighted average) considerably harder than soft right. Let's say semi-hard right to avoid smearing them as Tommy Robinson organs. Put another way, the left wing press are like a Starmer not a Pidcock and the right wing press are like a Patel not a Hammond.
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
And what's your view, Nigel? Is Nicola in the wrong and in trouble?
Haven't a clue. But it needs settling out in the open, rather than brushing under the carpet.
Which you might think argues in one direction.
I don't know either. I instinctively trust Sturgeon more than Salmon, and the evidence from his trial, whilst not quibbling the verdict, didn't make me revise my opinion of him upwards, plus I'd have thought the Sindy movement needs her more than him, but that's about the extent of my view.
I know I'm supposed to treat him as a bogeyman, but I always quite liked Salmond. He always came across (to me, at least) as witty, genial and quite human. Whereas I get the impression Nicola Sturgeon hates me and everyone else in England, personally and furiously. Impressions from afar, and all that, and of course I'm not the target voter for either of them.
Please have a think about this seriously before responding - and don't jump down my throat - but are you sure that some of this perception differential is not because Salmond is a man and Sturgeon is not?
Hi @floater. FPT. My partner, aged 47, had the Oxford last Thursday. She is still feeling weak and off colour, but not enough to be off work. Another anecdote that the younger you are, the worse the vaccine affects some .
Thank you for taking the time to respond - I will shorty be escorting her to her jab to ensure no backsliding
Our (now retired) cleaner had it. She's 80. Nil side affects. None at all.
Any insight on how it is that the press is continuously biased in favour of the Conservatives? Is it bribery? Are journalists conditioned to like the colour blue? What?
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
If the press reflected the electorate then there would be probably 2 left-wing papers for every 3 right-wing papers? There isn't and there never will be.
It's a mix of factors - but I would suggest the crucial one is that people who own newspapers are very wealthy and they don't like the sound of the redistribution that the left is keen on.
Ok let's think this one through properly.
We can presumably agree on the Telegraph and Mail being right wing, and the Guardian and the Mirror being left. So let's call that a wash; it's not my fault the right wing variants are so much more popular.
The Express is clearly right wing. The Star should be roughly its left wing equivalent, based on ownership, although its editorial line is very unclear to me (and it seems from a quick Google that I'm not alone). But in theory that should be a wash.
The Independent, we can disagree on whether it is actually independent, but it certainly isn't right wing.
The Financial Times and City AM aren't all that political and have circulations far too small to matter mostly consisting of people who aren't traditional swing voters.
The Metro and the Standard... I've never been able to discern any form of political editorial line from either; they function mostly as celebrity trash mags..
So that leaves the Sun and the Times. And means that the argument that we have a "right wing press" that is unduly influencing elections rests solely on the shoulders of Rupert Murdoch, a man who famously backed Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (as Chancellor, if not as PM) for well over a decade. And, is there really that much evidence that either paper is all that enthusiastic about the current administration?
Whether you look by number of papers or circulation it is clear that the political distribution of newspapers does not match the political distribution of the electorate.
On your specific points - the Standard is run by George Osborne and endorsed the Conservative party in 2019 and 2017. The Sun always endorses the Tories except for Tony Blair.
"It is clear"? To whom, exactly? I've just outlined the distribution by paper and it does not support your analysis. The fact that more people buy right wing papers than left is because there are more of them in the country to begin with, not because of some nefarious goings-on by dodgy cigar-chomping magnates.
Also, Osborne was editor of the Standard - not the owner - from 2017 only, and has now left. His replacement is apparently Samantha Cameron's sister, albeit I'm not sure how much that has influenced her politics. In any event, the Standard's distribution is pretty much limited to London, which is the one area of the country where the Tories went backwards in 2019, so I don't think this helps your point in the slightest.
It's obvious. I can't believe you've baited me into looking this up. But you have, so I might as well lay it out.
In 2019, Labour got 32% of the vote vs Tories 46%.
Labour received the endorsement of the daily mirror, guardian, morning star. Total circulation = 650k. The Tories got the endorsement of Express, Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Times, Evening Standard. Total circulation = 4.5m.
I don't remember who I was having the brief discussion with abut 633 Squadron and the Death Star attack scene in Star Wars - A New Hope but, whoever it was, enjoy -
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
And what's your view, Nigel? Is Nicola in the wrong and in trouble?
Haven't a clue. But it needs settling out in the open, rather than brushing under the carpet.
Which you might think argues in one direction.
I don't know either. I instinctively trust Sturgeon more than Salmon, and the evidence from his trial, whilst not quibbling the verdict, didn't make me revise my opinion of him upwards, plus I'd have thought the Sindy movement needs her more than him, but that's about the extent of my view.
I know I'm supposed to treat him as a bogeyman, but I always quite liked Salmond. He always came across (to me, at least) as witty, genial and quite human. Whereas I get the impression Nicola Sturgeon hates me and everyone else in England, personally and furiously. Impressions from afar, and all that, and of course I'm not the target voter for either of them.
Please have a think about this seriously before responding - and don't jump down my throat - but are you sure that some of this perception differential is not because Salmond is a man and Sturgeon is not?
It may well be. You could imagine having a cheery drink with Salmond in a way you couldn't with Sturgeon. I had wondered the same. But actually, thinking through my opinions of other politicians - both those I agree with and those I don't - I don't think there's any obvious gender-driven theme there. I think it's just that Salmond is generally cheerier. My fairly apolitical wife is actually far more averse to Sturgeon than I am. Mind you, she also reacted very negatively to Ruth Davidson. Maybe it's a Scottish woman thing.
About 10,000 passengers (and 5,000 hauliers) arriving a day - so hotel quarantine for all of them for 14 days would require 140,000 hotel rooms......assuming the £1750 fee didn't substantially reduce arrivals
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
My media is Times on a Saturday, BBC website, CH4 news, PB.com, podcasts selected quite randomly and with no particular angle, plus Owen Jones twitter and agitprop for modern metro left.
EDIT: And lots of R4 obvs.
Thanks. Not a million miles different between us. And you're of the left - easy to see why people complain of the "right wing media" when those of the left don't primarily, or perhaps at all consume left wing media (OJ, etc aside).
Yep, good point. It's a tricky one. To complain with credibility about the right wing media you must consume some of it. Which is a tough gig. A different and (imo) interesting way to look at the bias is that the crazy left wing stuff like Novara Media is fringe but it's equivalent on the right - the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph etc - is mainstream. This creates advantage for the right. Of course you could say - indeed I think you already have - this simply reflects the balance of people's views but I don't fully buy that. I think it also reinforces them. There's an influence there, insidious and significant.
If it's the chicken of the masses being lead by the media or the egg of the media following the masses, I will plump for the latter. They do what they can to sell papers. Why is Novara Media fringe? Because not many people support it (as in consume it - there are options to support them financially also on their website).
If it is a case of the media dictating the agenda and thereby forcing people to follow their own line, how come the left-leaning media is so useless at it according to the "right wing media" narrative?
Do you or your views feel shaken after a day, courtesy of Rupert, with Giles, Matthew, Deborah et al?
I think it's both. Chicken AND egg. The relativities being of course eminently arguable. Why does the left media not have an impact? It does. But it reaches fewer people. Cue return to chicken and egg debate. And yes, my views are impacted by prolonged exposure to right wing media. I once, for example, took the Speccie for a few months, and read each edition cover to cover, and it coarsened me.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
My media is Times on a Saturday, BBC website, CH4 news, PB.com, podcasts selected quite randomly and with no particular angle, plus Owen Jones twitter and agitprop for modern metro left.
EDIT: And lots of R4 obvs.
Thanks. Not a million miles different between us. And you're of the left - easy to see why people complain of the "right wing media" when those of the left don't primarily, or perhaps at all consume left wing media (OJ, etc aside).
Yep, good point. It's a tricky one. To complain with credibility about the right wing media you must consume some of it. Which is a tough gig. A different and (imo) interesting way to look at the bias is that the crazy left wing stuff like Novara Media is fringe but it's equivalent on the right - the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph etc - is mainstream. This creates advantage for the right. Of course you could say - indeed I think you already have - this simply reflects the balance of people's views but I don't fully buy that. I think it also reinforces them. There's an influence there, insidious and significant.
Ah, that's interesting. I would contend that the Mirror and the Mail are roughly equidistant from the political centre, and their relative readerships are indicative of why Labour struggle to win elections. Ditto the Guardian and the Telegraph.
Would you agree that Novara are clearly further left than the Mirror? In which case, presumably you disagree that the Mirror and the Mail are equivalent (as per the above), or else your previous post makes no sense? Obviously, this relies on simplifying the political spectrum into a one-dimensional scale, but whatever.
Yep. Exactly. The Mirror and Guardian are soft left. The Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Express are (on weighted average) considerably harder than soft right. Let's say semi-hard right to avoid smearing them as Tommy Robinson organs. Put another way, the left wing press are like a Starmer not a Pidcock and the right wing press are like a Patel not a Hammond.
Have you ever read Comment is Free? Pidcockery aplenty there. The Mirror's more interesting - hates the Tories, but not nearly as woke as the Guardian. I'd say the centre ground of the Telegraph is around Graham Brady. Gammony, but very much on the libertarian side. The Sun is Patellier, definitely.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
My media is Times on a Saturday, BBC website, CH4 news, PB.com, podcasts selected quite randomly and with no particular angle, plus Owen Jones twitter and agitprop for modern metro left.
EDIT: And lots of R4 obvs.
Thanks. Not a million miles different between us. And you're of the left - easy to see why people complain of the "right wing media" when those of the left don't primarily, or perhaps at all consume left wing media (OJ, etc aside).
Yep, good point. It's a tricky one. To complain with credibility about the right wing media you must consume some of it. Which is a tough gig. A different and (imo) interesting way to look at the bias is that the crazy left wing stuff like Novara Media is fringe but it's equivalent on the right - the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph etc - is mainstream. This creates advantage for the right. Of course you could say - indeed I think you already have - this simply reflects the balance of people's views but I don't fully buy that. I think it also reinforces them. There's an influence there, insidious and significant.
If it's the chicken of the masses being lead by the media or the egg of the media following the masses, I will plump for the latter. They do what they can to sell papers. Why is Novara Media fringe? Because not many people support it (as in consume it - there are options to support them financially also on their website).
If it is a case of the media dictating the agenda and thereby forcing people to follow their own line, how come the left-leaning media is so useless at it according to the "right wing media" narrative?
Do you or your views feel shaken after a day, courtesy of Rupert, with Giles, Matthew, Deborah et al?
I think it's both. Chicken AND egg. The relativities being of course eminently arguable. Why does the left media not have an impact? It does. But it reaches fewer people. Cue return to chicken and egg debate. And yes, my views are impacted by prolonged exposure to right wing media. I once, for example, took the Speccie for a few months, and read each edition cover to cover, and it coarsened me.
Bloody Hell. I wouldn't read the spectator. Too right wing for me. You really did put yourself in a room full of spiders.
The updated J&J single-dose vaccine data looks very good - very effective (better than 80%) efficacy from 28 days onwards against severe/critical Covid in all three regions where they ran the trials, including South Africa where most of the cases were the nasty variant version of the virus. Admittedly it's less effective against mild cases, especially in SA (but that's probably the same for the other jabs). Also it seems to work fine in the over-65s (albeit with relatively small sample sizes). It even had fewer adverse reactions than the mRNA jabs.
Looks near-certain to me that the FDA will approve it. It's cheap, single-dose, will be manufactured in large quantities in multiple locations, and doesn't require special refrigeration. This is going to be a major boost to reducing the toll of the virus around the world.
It would be a surprise if it was much different from the Oxford vaccine.
I wonder if we'll use it as a two dose / 12 week jab too? Or even in combination with the Oxford vaccine so that any immunity to the adenovirus carrier isn't an issue?
Just googled Novara Media using the search term, er, "Novara media".
On the pinned tweets on the first search results page, two of the three are about Israel/Palestinians.
And people wonder why the "right wing" media dominates.
Novara is a secret pleasure of mine for their frequently hilarious takes on the most pressing issues of the day:
I dip in and out of Ash Sarkar - who I like and rate - but on the whole I steer clear of Novara.
Owen Jones is imo the best guide to what's hot and what's not on the modern metro left.
She of the 'literally a communist'? And 'luxury communism', whatever the eff that is? I can only assume she thinks she would get to shop at the communist party officials only shops come the revolution... Still I can watch the Novara Media election 2019 coverage over and over, and it still makes me smile...
There is no place for communism in this world. Every time its been tried there have been mass executions and cratered economies.
What she means is "harnessing AI and new tech to eradicate drudgery for the many rather than make squillions for the few", but that strapline is open to criticism, I agree. She's not an old fart, though, remember, she's modern metro left, and she does produce some good material, both of the serious and tongue-in-cheek variety. I like and rate her but at the same time I recognize she is erratic. I wouldn't take a lead from her without lots of cross checking as I would from, say, Helen Lewis or Owen Jones.
Comments
Looks near-certain to me that the FDA will approve it. It's cheap, single-dose, will be manufactured in large quantities in multiple locations, and doesn't require special refrigeration. This is going to be a major boost to reducing the toll of the virus around the world.
I'd say the opposite of the Sun and Telegraph are the Mirror and Guardian.
England have made their enseamed bed, and must lie in it.
In 2019, Labour got 32% of the vote vs Tories 46%.
Labour received the endorsement of the daily mirror, guardian, morning star. Total circulation = 650k.
The Tories got the endorsement of Express, Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Times, Evening Standard. Total circulation = 4.5m.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#Endorsements_for_parties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2020_to_present
But actually, thinking through my opinions of other politicians - both those I agree with and those I don't - I don't think there's any obvious gender-driven theme there.
I think it's just that Salmond is generally cheerier.
My fairly apolitical wife is actually far more averse to Sturgeon than I am. Mind you, she also reacted very negatively to Ruth Davidson. Maybe it's a Scottish woman thing.
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1364569891886489602?s=20
I'd say the centre ground of the Telegraph is around Graham Brady. Gammony, but very much on the libertarian side. The Sun is Patellier, definitely.
I wonder if we'll use it as a two dose / 12 week jab too? Or even in combination with the Oxford vaccine so that any immunity to the adenovirus carrier isn't an issue?