The dramatic change in attitudes to sexuality on both sides of the Atlantic – politicalbetting.com
Fascinating how our #sexuality is changing. We have just got virtually identical data for the #USA as we found in the #UK #fluid pic.twitter.com/18R0fYJUk2
Consulting giant McKinsey has attracted criticism over France's slow vaccine rollout after Emmanuel Macron gave the firm £2.83 million to handle logistics.
The president signed contracts totalling £9.46 million with four large consulting firms, despite France's traditional pride for the quality of its vast civil service
On a more serious note, this is fascinating. I've just finished Douglas Murray's "The Madness of Crowds" in which he describes the continual tension between those who see LGBT+ issues in terms of "hardware" (innate) vs "software" (environmental factors). The data above suggests both but probably the "software" side of things has more influence than a lot of people thought. Interestingly, for the "mostly / only" attracted to the same sex, the numbers for Gen Z / Millennials / Gen X look broadly the same, it's the equally attracted part where causes the divergence. As a side note, that polling also suggests the percentage of the population that is Gay is probably higher than most estimates.
Interesting but probably more a reflection of the fact people are more open about homosexuality and bisexuality under the Kinsey scale than they were before, the majority still classify themselves as heterosexual across all ages, just younger people are more fluid about their sexuality. After all 55 years ago homosexuality was still illegal and gay marriage was only legalised in 2013 in the UK.
Not buying this one bit. Every survey I've seen that looks remotely representative finds a % of LGB respondents in the low-to-mid single digits. This one reckons its 10+ even for Boomers, and more like 15-20 for the adult population as a whole. Who on earth are they asking?
On a more serious note, this is fascinating. I've just finished Douglas Murray's "The Madness of Crowds" in which he describes the continual tension between those who see LGBT+ issues in terms of "hardware" (innate) vs "software" (environmental factors). The data above suggests both but probably the "software" side of things has more influence than a lot of people thought. Interestingly, for the "mostly / only" attracted to the same sex, the numbers for Gen Z / Millennials / Gen X look broadly the same, it's the equally attracted part where causes the divergence. As a side note, that polling also suggests the percentage of the population that is Gay is probably higher than most estimates.
Yep, very interesting, isn't it? Will also be fascinating to see whether this changes with age as well as generation (i.e. is attraction something that is more fluid when younger or will Gen Z keep this profile as they age?)
Edit: reply to original tweet references https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/historical-report-diversity-of-sexual-orientation.php which mentions a reanalysis of 50s data for which, in a college subsample "30% of males reported a homosexual experience to orgasm for the male or his partner". Not read the study, but that wouldn't be massively out of line with gen Z in this survey (if you equate that to same sex or both). Subsample claxon, obviously
Anyway, the big news today (re-post from previous thread) is this:
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.
Note how "only attracted to the same sex" percentage is roughly the same from Gen X to Gen Z.
This was one of my first observations too, but I expect that over time, some of the middle categories will migrate towards one of the "only" categories for Gen Z and Millenials.
On a more serious note, this is fascinating. I've just finished Douglas Murray's "The Madness of Crowds" in which he describes the continual tension between those who see LGBT+ issues in terms of "hardware" (innate) vs "software" (environmental factors). The data above suggests both but probably the "software" side of things has more influence than a lot of people thought. Interestingly, for the "mostly / only" attracted to the same sex, the numbers for Gen Z / Millennials / Gen X look broadly the same, it's the equally attracted part where causes the divergence. As a side note, that polling also suggests the percentage of the population that is Gay is probably higher than most estimates.
Or maybe younger generations are just not repressing any feelings or curiosities? For example, I've only ever dated and been with women but I'm open to the possibility that in the future this could change. I'm not afraid or worried about possibly being attracted to a man. How would I answer this poll? Not sure to be honest.
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.
(FPT) 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.
Anyway, the big news today (re-post from previous thread) is this:
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.
The data actually looks very similar to the AZ vaccine with one dose. Not surprising given the similarities.
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
I remember my own discovery I was a millenial - it's a sobering moment. Since I was sober anyway, it pushed me through beyond sobriety, which wasn't pleasant.
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
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....which are already down 95%....
Anyway, the big news today (re-post from previous thread) is this:
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.
The data actually looks very similar to the AZ vaccine with one dose. Not surprising given the similarities.
Yes, indeed. That's good news in the other direction as well - it suggests that AZ will be effective against the SA variant, for which we don't have much data.
One interesting question is whether J&J will end up recommending a second dose once they've completed their trials on that. I suspect they will, but the main thing is that all of the four vaccines for which we have full trial data look very effective even with one dose, at least for a while.
The world just needs to get these jabs into arms ASAP.
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....which are already down 95%....
I note she doesn't say what proportion of people test positive. If none do or if it's fewer than the current infection rate in the UK, the policy should be scrapped immediately.
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
And of the 15,000 - 5,000 are hauliers - and we don't know how many of those are coming from Ireland.
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
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....which are already down 95%....
I note she doesn't say what proportion of people test positive. If none do or if it's fewer than the current infection rate in the UK, the policy should be scrapped immediately.
Why? It’s massively suppressing travel from those countries. If anything it should be extended to all countries.
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.
(FPT) 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.
Not buying this one bit. Every survey I've seen that looks remotely representative finds a % of LGB respondents in the low-to-mid single digits. This one reckons its 10+ even for Boomers, and more like 15-20 for the adult population as a whole. Who on earth are they asking?
The very large difference between the Boomers and everyone else suggests that it might be simply that more people are willing to be honest these days, as not many under the age of fifty care all that much. Which certainly wasn't the case until fairly recently.
The Biden administration is to deliver more than 25 million masks to community health centres, food hubs and soup kitchens from March through May, the White House said in a statement on Wednesday.
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.
(FPT) 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 think all you've done there is proven there isn't much of a link between newspaper endorsements, and votes.
More generally, endorsements are binary - papers pretty much have to pick one or the other, assuming they view staying neutral (or worse, picking another party than the main two) as a cop-out. But just putting the Sun's million plus circulation into a right-wing bucket just because in a forced choice between Corbyn and Johnson, they picked the latter, seems like an overreaction. Their general editorial line will be far more nuanced than that.
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.
(FPT) 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.
Anyway, the big news today (re-post from previous thread) is this:
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.
The data actually looks very similar to the AZ vaccine with one dose. Not surprising given the similarities.
Yes, indeed. That's good news in the other direction as well - it suggests that AZ will be effective against the SA variant, for which we don't have much data.
One interesting question is whether J&J will end up recommending a second dose once they've completed their trials on that. I suspect they will, but the main thing is that all of the four vaccines for which we have full trial data look very effective even with one dose, at least for a while.
The world just needs to get these jabs into arms ASAP.
A second dose of AZ to avoid carrier immunity? Might be the best of both.
Aren't we running a mixed mode trial? Is it Pfizer / AZ only, or does it include J&J?
Anyway, the big news today (re-post from previous thread) is this:
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.
The data actually looks very similar to the AZ vaccine with one dose. Not surprising given the similarities.
Yes, indeed. That's good news in the other direction as well - it suggests that AZ will be effective against the SA variant, for which we don't have much data.
One interesting question is whether J&J will end up recommending a second dose once they've completed their trials on that. I suspect they will, but the main thing is that all of the four vaccines for which we have full trial data look very effective even with one dose, at least for a while.
The world just needs to get these jabs into arms ASAP.
Yes agreed. We've managed to get into this really stupid situation where the AZ vaccine is now seen as inferior by much of the developed world because of a stupid contract argument between the EU and AZ and the resulting fallout. That is going to cost real people their lives and extend lockdowns across Europe. The initial UK data on both vaccines with a single dose is hugely, hugely positive especially considering it has been carried out among healthcare workers who are likely to come into contact with infected people often.
In the 2nd column here. I think the middle categories are more a female thing, though open to correction from the breakdown. I think it's very normal for women in particular to express same-sex attraction (exclusively or otherwise). The 7-14% figures for lesbian & gay are high compared to other evidence of up to 5%, including among marriage-age cohorts; not sure 10% of people are closeted yet choosing to come out to Ipsos MORI. Gen Z is so online and philosophically idealist; some of them would reject these categories as binary hate speech.
Anyway, the big news today (re-post from previous thread) is this:
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.
The data actually looks very similar to the AZ vaccine with one dose. Not surprising given the similarities.
Yes, indeed. That's good news in the other direction as well - it suggests that AZ will be effective against the SA variant, for which we don't have much data.
One interesting question is whether J&J will end up recommending a second dose once they've completed their trials on that. I suspect they will, but the main thing is that all of the four vaccines for which we have full trial data look very effective even with one dose, at least for a while.
The world just needs to get these jabs into arms ASAP.
Yes agreed. We've managed to get into this really stupid situation where the AZ vaccine is now seen as inferior by much of the developed world because of a stupid contract argument between the EU and AZ and the resulting fallout. That is going to cost real people their lives and extend lockdowns across Europe. The initial UK data on both vaccines with a single dose is hugely, hugely positive especially considering it has been carried out among healthcare workers who are likely to come into contact with infected people often.
Its an even bigger disaster than allowing last year European summer holiday season to operate as near normal.
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
Quite. Other than hauliers, who the feck are these people? What is their excuse? Thousands of people that are exempt from the travel rules the rest of us are following? Why?
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
Yes. Gen X is the coolest generation. The decade that we dominated culture, the 90s, was the last decade where anything worthwhile was produced. We just weren't much good at cricket.
Anyway, the big news today (re-post from previous thread) is this:
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.
The data actually looks very similar to the AZ vaccine with one dose. Not surprising given the similarities.
Yes, indeed. That's good news in the other direction as well - it suggests that AZ will be effective against the SA variant, for which we don't have much data.
One interesting question is whether J&J will end up recommending a second dose once they've completed their trials on that. I suspect they will, but the main thing is that all of the four vaccines for which we have full trial data look very effective even with one dose, at least for a while.
The world just needs to get these jabs into arms ASAP.
A second dose of AZ to avoid carrier immunity? Might be the best of both.
Aren't we running a mixed mode trial? Is it Pfizer / AZ only, or does it include J&J?
It's something a bit more than that, given Boomers still remember when there were significant legal and social consequences for professing homosexuality.
Unless you are using a very wide definition indeed of 'fashion'.
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
Quite. Other than hauliers, who the feck are these people? What is their excuse? Thousands of people that are exempt from the travel rules the rest of us are following? Why?
We are making children wear masks for hours on end five days a week, but not closing borders.
Note how "only attracted to the same sex" percentage is roughly the same from Gen X to Gen Z.
Indeed, everything else is "I'm trying to be on trend" type of people.
Most likely not.
Gay liberation was a very long process, not just an event that happened in 1967. Never mind the fact that discrimination and violence against gay people still hasn't ended - the environment in which lesbians and gays had to live for at least the thirty years after the initial, very limited, decriminalisation of gay sex was pretty wretched. It got progressively better, but only very gradually.
I'd contend that one of the consequences of incrementally improving conditions for homosexual people is that many others who would otherwise have stuck only with opposite sex relationships - for fear of ridicule or worse - have been progressively encouraged to explore and experiment, rather than sticking to previously accepted social norms, and in many cases have discovered that they rather like swinging both ways. I've long believed that human sexuality exists along a spectrum, and the notion that people must be either entirely gay or entirely straight is as ludicrous as the ancient prejudice that all must be straight and being gay is some kind of affliction.
If the eventual endpoint of this evolution is that the group floating in the middle ends up being larger than either of the segments of the population that are purely attracted to one gender, then perhaps this shouldn't come as such a big surprise?
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.
(FPT) 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.
Is the Standard entirely sure that the best 2 candidates for the job were the closest colleague of the former PM followed by his sister-in-law? A quite remarkable coincidence.
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.
(FPT) 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.
In 2001 however it should be pointed out the Express, Times, Sun and Evening Standard supported Blair and Hague was just left with the Mail and Telegraph.
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
Quite. Other than hauliers, who the feck are these people? What is their excuse? Thousands of people that are exempt from the travel rules the rest of us are following? Why?
We are making children wear masks for hours on end five days a week, but not closing borders.
Something is very wrong somewhere.
I get you think lots of things are being done wrong with schools - what would be your solutions? Genuine question (i.e. not trying to pick a fight).
It's something a bit more than that, given Boomers still remember when there were significant legal and social consequences for professing homosexuality.
Unless you are using a very wide definition indeed of 'fashion'.
The youngsters have been bombarded with advertising, peer pressure and pop videos - and even formal education - to think that LBGTQ+ (or whatever the latest acronym is) is cool. Hardly surprising that it's fashionable to say so, but I really don't think it signifies anything very much.
Equally it is true that the oldies were influenced in the youth in their opposite direction, although that was a long time ago.
Anyway, the big news today (re-post from previous thread) is this:
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.
The data actually looks very similar to the AZ vaccine with one dose. Not surprising given the similarities.
Anyway, the big news today (re-post from previous thread) is this:
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.
The data actually looks very similar to the AZ vaccine with one dose. Not surprising given the similarities.
Yes, indeed. That's good news in the other direction as well - it suggests that AZ will be effective against the SA variant, for which we don't have much data.
One interesting question is whether J&J will end up recommending a second dose once they've completed their trials on that. I suspect they will, but the main thing is that all of the four vaccines for which we have full trial data look very effective even with one dose, at least for a while.
The world just needs to get these jabs into arms ASAP.
A second dose of AZ to avoid carrier immunity? Might be the best of both.
Aren't we running a mixed mode trial? Is it Pfizer / AZ only, or does it include J&J?
Gen Z is so online and philosophically idealist; some of them would reject these categories as binary hate speech.
I dunno. Some on here, such as @Leon, seem to suggest that Gen Z is pushing back against millennial "woke nonsense". The evidence suggests otherwise.
I don't think even the gammoniest boomer would decry being attracted to the same sex as 'woke nonsense'. Wokery gets far, far more nonsensical than that.
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
Quite. Other than hauliers, who the feck are these people? What is their excuse? Thousands of people that are exempt from the travel rules the rest of us are following? Why?
We are making children wear masks for hours on end five days a week, but not closing borders.
Something is very wrong somewhere.
I get you think lots of things are being done wrong with schools - what would be your solutions? Genuine question (i.e. not trying to pick a fight).
Masks are unlikely to be helpful in prolonged close contact cases, while causing huge problems elsewhere. So get rid of them.
Otherwise, the situation is such a complete muddle it’s difficult to know what to do for the best. The obvious solution would be to increase capacity through using supply teachers and office spaceS to create smaller classes with more spaces in them, but that isn’t simple or straightforward.
The real mistakes were made back in October with the refusal to consider blended learning and the legal threats to make sure that couldn’t happen.
Ultimately, any attempts to sort that mess out will merely be tinkering at the edges.
Edit - another thing the government could do is stop parroting this lie that all pupils in all schools are going back on the 8th. They’re not, and it’s causing immense confusion and upset.
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.
(FPT) 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.
Is the Standard entirely sure that the best 2 candidates for the job were the closest colleague of the former PM followed by his sister-in-law? A quite remarkable coincidence.
How shallow, and self professed at that, the new Evening Standard Editor is.
Gen Z is so online and philosophically idealist; some of them would reject these categories as binary hate speech.
I dunno. Some on here, such as @Leon, seem to suggest that Gen Z is pushing back against millennial "woke nonsense". The evidence suggests otherwise.
I don't think even the gammoniest boomer would decry being attracted to the same sex as 'woke nonsense'. Wokery gets far, far more nonsensical than that.
Plenty would describe "rejecting these categories as binary hate speech" as "woke nonsense".
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
Quite. Other than hauliers, who the feck are these people? What is their excuse? Thousands of people that are exempt from the travel rules the rest of us are following? Why?
We are making children wear masks for hours on end five days a week, but not closing borders.
Something is very wrong somewhere.
I get you think lots of things are being done wrong with schools - what would be your solutions? Genuine question (i.e. not trying to pick a fight).
Masks are unlikely to be helpful in prolonged close contact cases, while causing huge problems elsewhere. So get rid of them.
Otherwise, the situation is such a complete muddle it’s difficult to know what to do for the best. The obvious solution would be to increase capacity through using supply teachers and office spaceS to create smaller classes with more spaces in them, but that isn’t simple or straightforward.
The real mistakes were made back in October with the refusal to consider blended learning and the legal threats to make sure that couldn’t happen.
Ultimately, any attempts to sort that mess out will merely be tinkering at the edges.
Cheers. I think you are probably right on blended approaches. Its worked pretty well at my Uni - students getting some in person teaching, but other content and classes online. Moving into next year we expect to retain some elements of this - lectures to large gatherings of students may never return, with the opportunity to repurpose lots of now vacant lecture theatre spaces.
I'm a little annoyed that no-one has the gumption to run a trial on the masks - e.g. ask some schools to use them and others not. At least try to get some real work data.
Incidentally, although it’s separate from his inability to answer a question which is painfully reminiscent of Tristram Hunt, does anyone else think Williamson has an incredibly unpleasant voice?
Gen Z is so online and philosophically idealist; some of them would reject these categories as binary hate speech.
I dunno. Some on here, such as @Leon, seem to suggest that Gen Z is pushing back against millennial "woke nonsense". The evidence suggests otherwise.
I don't think even the gammoniest boomer would decry being attracted to the same sex as 'woke nonsense'. Wokery gets far, far more nonsensical than that.
Plenty would describe "rejecting these categories as binary hate speech" as "woke nonsense".
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
Quite. Other than hauliers, who the feck are these people? What is their excuse? Thousands of people that are exempt from the travel rules the rest of us are following? Why?
We are making children wear masks for hours on end five days a week, but not closing borders.
Something is very wrong somewhere.
I get you think lots of things are being done wrong with schools - what would be your solutions? Genuine question (i.e. not trying to pick a fight).
Masks are unlikely to be helpful in prolonged close contact cases, while causing huge problems elsewhere. So get rid of them.
Otherwise, the situation is such a complete muddle it’s difficult to know what to do for the best. The obvious solution would be to increase capacity through using supply teachers and office spaceS to create smaller classes with more spaces in them, but that isn’t simple or straightforward.
The real mistakes were made back in October with the refusal to consider blended learning and the legal threats to make sure that couldn’t happen.
Ultimately, any attempts to sort that mess out will merely be tinkering at the edges.
Cheers. I think you are probably right on blended approaches. Its worked pretty well at my Uni - students getting some in person teaching, but other content and classes online. Moving into next year we expect to retain some elements of this - lectures to large gatherings of students may never return, with the opportunity to repurpose lots of now vacant lecture theatre spaces.
I'm a little annoyed that no-one has the gumption to run a trial on the masks - e.g. ask some schools to use them and others not. At least try to get some real work data.
Keep up the good work - we do appreciate it.
Thanks. I hope you get some more clarity on HE soon. I see they want all of you to wear masks as well...I feel your pain (literally)!
Incidentally, although it’s separate from his inability to answer a question which is painfully reminiscent of Tristram Hunt, does anyone else think Williamson has an incredibly unpleasant voice?
Sooner he is removed the better. Just does not appear up to it. Currently making every single other cabinet minister look good (ok, that might be too strong, but you know what I mean...)
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
Quite. Other than hauliers, who the feck are these people? What is their excuse? Thousands of people that are exempt from the travel rules the rest of us are following? Why?
We are making children wear masks for hours on end five days a week, but not closing borders.
Something is very wrong somewhere.
I get you think lots of things are being done wrong with schools - what would be your solutions? Genuine question (i.e. not trying to pick a fight).
Masks are unlikely to be helpful in prolonged close contact cases, while causing huge problems elsewhere. So get rid of them.
Otherwise, the situation is such a complete muddle it’s difficult to know what to do for the best. The obvious solution would be to increase capacity through using supply teachers and office spaceS to create smaller classes with more spaces in them, but that isn’t simple or straightforward.
The real mistakes were made back in October with the refusal to consider blended learning and the legal threats to make sure that couldn’t happen.
Ultimately, any attempts to sort that mess out will merely be tinkering at the edges.
Cheers. I think you are probably right on blended approaches. Its worked pretty well at my Uni - students getting some in person teaching, but other content and classes online. Moving into next year we expect to retain some elements of this - lectures to large gatherings of students may never return, with the opportunity to repurpose lots of now vacant lecture theatre spaces.
I'm a little annoyed that no-one has the gumption to run a trial on the masks - e.g. ask some schools to use them and others not. At least try to get some real work data.
Keep up the good work - we do appreciate it.
I gave feedback to my university yesterday that lectures don't need to exist in normal times. A recorded lecture is much better in every aspect, with face-to-face time being dedicated to workshops and seminars where real learning is done.
Incidentally, although it’s separate from his inability to answer a question which is painfully reminiscent of Tristram Hunt, does anyone else think Williamson has an incredibly unpleasant voice?
Yes. A strange mix of creepy and immature.
Perhaps not his fault, but a serious deficit in a politician. And it's not as though there are any countervailing positives.
Gen Z is so online and philosophically idealist; some of them would reject these categories as binary hate speech.
I dunno. Some on here, such as @Leon, seem to suggest that Gen Z is pushing back against millennial "woke nonsense". The evidence suggests otherwise.
I don't think even the gammoniest boomer would decry being attracted to the same sex as 'woke nonsense'. Wokery gets far, far more nonsensical than that.
The problem is that quite a lot would. Since there is no agreed definition of "woke" from its opponents, quite often it becomes "modern stuff I don't approve of." Which can encompass a heck of a lot.
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
Quite. Other than hauliers, who the feck are these people? What is their excuse? Thousands of people that are exempt from the travel rules the rest of us are following? Why?
We are making children wear masks for hours on end five days a week, but not closing borders.
Something is very wrong somewhere.
I get you think lots of things are being done wrong with schools - what would be your solutions? Genuine question (i.e. not trying to pick a fight).
Masks are unlikely to be helpful in prolonged close contact cases, while causing huge problems elsewhere. So get rid of them.
Otherwise, the situation is such a complete muddle it’s difficult to know what to do for the best. The obvious solution would be to increase capacity through using supply teachers and office spaceS to create smaller classes with more spaces in them, but that isn’t simple or straightforward.
The real mistakes were made back in October with the refusal to consider blended learning and the legal threats to make sure that couldn’t happen.
Ultimately, any attempts to sort that mess out will merely be tinkering at the edges.
Cheers. I think you are probably right on blended approaches. Its worked pretty well at my Uni - students getting some in person teaching, but other content and classes online. Moving into next year we expect to retain some elements of this - lectures to large gatherings of students may never return, with the opportunity to repurpose lots of now vacant lecture theatre spaces.
I'm a little annoyed that no-one has the gumption to run a trial on the masks - e.g. ask some schools to use them and others not. At least try to get some real work data.
Keep up the good work - we do appreciate it.
Thanks. I hope you get some more clarity on HE soon. I see they want all of you to wear masks as well...I feel your pain (literally)!
We have been since last summer. Its in all corridors and shared spaces now. I will admit to sharing a coffee with a colleague in my spacious office with the window open and no masks...
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....which are already down 95%....
I note she doesn't say what proportion of people test positive. If none do or if it's fewer than the current infection rate in the UK, the policy should be scrapped immediately.
A "show" policy, I think. They had to give the border botherers something. There was much noise, a great deal of it from demographics which contributed heavily to 12/19 C80.
Note how "only attracted to the same sex" percentage is roughly the same from Gen X to Gen Z.
Indeed, everything else is "I'm trying to be on trend" type of people.
Most likely not.
Gay liberation was a very long process, not just an event that happened in 1967. Never mind the fact that discrimination and violence against gay people still hasn't ended - the environment in which lesbians and gays had to live for at least the thirty years after the initial, very limited, decriminalisation of gay sex was pretty wretched. It got progressively better, but only very gradually.
I'd contend that one of the consequences of incrementally improving conditions for homosexual people is that many others who would otherwise have stuck only with opposite sex relationships - for fear of ridicule or worse - have been progressively encouraged to explore and experiment, rather than sticking to previously accepted social norms, and in many cases have discovered that they rather like swinging both ways. I've long believed that human sexuality exists along a spectrum, and the notion that people must be either entirely gay or entirely straight is as ludicrous as the ancient prejudice that all must be straight and being gay is some kind of affliction.
If the eventual endpoint of this evolution is that the group floating in the middle ends up being larger than either of the segments of the population that are purely attracted to one gender, then perhaps this shouldn't come as such a big surprise?
Whether you are attracted to one gender or both genders though it does not change the fact the good looking people will be most attractive to others, so it does not necessarily vastly expand your pool if you are not in that category.
At the end of the day most of us have relationships with those on a similar level of attractiveness and who we share similar personality traits with and get on with
Incidentally, although it’s separate from his inability to answer a question which is painfully reminiscent of Tristram Hunt, does anyone else think Williamson has an incredibly unpleasant voice?
Agreed and it is almost childlike and he is hopeless as well
You get at least 12% of people self-identifying as heterosexual while expressing some level of same-sex attraction. You also get about 3% of people self-identifying as gay or lesbian, which is at the low end of other figures.
Finally, the survey is online people and seems to cut off at age 75, excluding up to 10% of the adult population in the oldest cohorts - so you can stack the overall numbers a little in the baby-boomer direction.
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
Quite. Other than hauliers, who the feck are these people? What is their excuse? Thousands of people that are exempt from the travel rules the rest of us are following? Why?
We are making children wear masks for hours on end five days a week, but not closing borders.
Something is very wrong somewhere.
I get you think lots of things are being done wrong with schools - what would be your solutions? Genuine question (i.e. not trying to pick a fight).
Masks are unlikely to be helpful in prolonged close contact cases, while causing huge problems elsewhere. So get rid of them.
Otherwise, the situation is such a complete muddle it’s difficult to know what to do for the best. The obvious solution would be to increase capacity through using supply teachers and office spaceS to create smaller classes with more spaces in them, but that isn’t simple or straightforward.
The real mistakes were made back in October with the refusal to consider blended learning and the legal threats to make sure that couldn’t happen.
Ultimately, any attempts to sort that mess out will merely be tinkering at the edges.
Cheers. I think you are probably right on blended approaches. Its worked pretty well at my Uni - students getting some in person teaching, but other content and classes online. Moving into next year we expect to retain some elements of this - lectures to large gatherings of students may never return, with the opportunity to repurpose lots of now vacant lecture theatre spaces.
I'm a little annoyed that no-one has the gumption to run a trial on the masks - e.g. ask some schools to use them and others not. At least try to get some real work data.
Keep up the good work - we do appreciate it.
Thanks. I hope you get some more clarity on HE soon. I see they want all of you to wear masks as well...I feel your pain (literally)!
We have been since last summer. Its in all corridors and shared spaces now. I will admit to sharing a coffee with a colleague in my spacious office with the window open and no masks...
If I understand this briefing correctly, it’s now everywhere, maybe including your offices.
I hope I’m wrong because that’s ludicrous. But that’s what they’re trying to do to us.
What a misleading article. The 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are not required to go into hotel quarantine. Only those that came in from a Red List country do.
Its not misleading at all. There isn't a suggestion the system is failing to quarantine those that the government have deemed must quarantine, rather there are still very large numbers of people entering the country who aren't effected by this rules...which makes it all a bit of a waste of time, if we haven't really shut the borders properly.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
Quite. Other than hauliers, who the feck are these people? What is their excuse? Thousands of people that are exempt from the travel rules the rest of us are following? Why?
We are making children wear masks for hours on end five days a week, but not closing borders.
Something is very wrong somewhere.
I get you think lots of things are being done wrong with schools - what would be your solutions? Genuine question (i.e. not trying to pick a fight).
Masks are unlikely to be helpful in prolonged close contact cases, while causing huge problems elsewhere. So get rid of them.
Otherwise, the situation is such a complete muddle it’s difficult to know what to do for the best. The obvious solution would be to increase capacity through using supply teachers and office spaceS to create smaller classes with more spaces in them, but that isn’t simple or straightforward.
The real mistakes were made back in October with the refusal to consider blended learning and the legal threats to make sure that couldn’t happen.
Ultimately, any attempts to sort that mess out will merely be tinkering at the edges.
Cheers. I think you are probably right on blended approaches. Its worked pretty well at my Uni - students getting some in person teaching, but other content and classes online. Moving into next year we expect to retain some elements of this - lectures to large gatherings of students may never return, with the opportunity to repurpose lots of now vacant lecture theatre spaces.
I'm a little annoyed that no-one has the gumption to run a trial on the masks - e.g. ask some schools to use them and others not. At least try to get some real work data.
Keep up the good work - we do appreciate it.
I gave feedback to my university yesterday that lectures don't need to exist in normal times. A recorded lecture is much better in every aspect, with face-to-face time being dedicated to workshops and seminars where real learning is done.
Yep. Only thing I am doing wrong currently is sticking to length (so recording a 50 min lecture). Apparently students prefer shorter blocks. Some content is easier to split than others. Our latest work round is to put in 'take a break' slides so that the poor dears know when they can pause the playback!
Comments
The president signed contracts totalling £9.46 million with four large consulting firms, despite France's traditional pride for the quality of its vast civil service
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9295341/How-consulting-giant-McKinsey-magnet-criticism-Frances-bungled-Covid-response.html
Just ONE PER CENT of the 15,000 people arriving in the UK everyday are going into hotel quarantine, reveals head of Border Force
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9294951/Just-150-people-entering-UK-quarantine-hotels-day.html
from case data
from hospitalisation data
Edit: reply to original tweet references https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/historical-report-diversity-of-sexual-orientation.php which mentions a reanalysis of 50s data for which, in a college subsample "30% of males reported a homosexual experience to orgasm for the male or his partner". Not read the study, but that wouldn't be massively out of line with gen Z in this survey (if you equate that to same sex or both). Subsample claxon, obviously
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h82D5ZvcALM
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
I'm a millennial by the way.
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.
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
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1364569891886489602?s=20
One interesting question is whether J&J will end up recommending a second dose once they've completed their trials on that. I suspect they will, but the main thing is that all of the four vaccines for which we have full trial data look very effective even with one dose, at least for a while.
The world just needs to get these jabs into arms ASAP.
Even taking out the 1/3 that are hauliers, which I don't think anybody wants to put in a quarantine hotel, that still leaves 10,000.
Its "airbridges" all over again....by the time you know you have a problem with a particular country, it is already too late.
You either do this policy properly or don't bother at all.
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1364619151755644929?s=20
The Scottish government has quite a track record of ignoring votes in Holyrood....
Which certainly wasn't the case until fairly recently.
That seems a totally piddly amount.
More generally, endorsements are binary - papers pretty much have to pick one or the other, assuming they view staying neutral (or worse, picking another party than the main two) as a cop-out. But just putting the Sun's million plus circulation into a right-wing bucket just because in a forced choice between Corbyn and Johnson, they picked the latter, seems like an overreaction. Their general editorial line will be far more nuanced than that.
https://twitter.com/emilysheffield/status/746303490755039232?s=20
Aren't we running a mixed mode trial? Is it Pfizer / AZ only, or does it include J&J?
In the 2nd column here. I think the middle categories are more a female thing, though open to correction from the breakdown. I think it's very normal for women in particular to express same-sex attraction (exclusively or otherwise). The 7-14% figures for lesbian & gay are high compared to other evidence of up to 5%, including among marriage-age cohorts; not sure 10% of people are closeted yet choosing to come out to Ipsos MORI. Gen Z is so online and philosophically idealist; some of them would reject these categories as binary hate speech.
https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/news/worlds-first-covid-19-vaccine-alternating-dose-study-launches-uclh
Unless you are using a very wide definition indeed of 'fashion'.
‘£302 million pounds are going into school bodge its.‘
Otherwise, this is completely vacuous (and dishonest).
Sounds sensible.
Something is very wrong somewhere.
Gay liberation was a very long process, not just an event that happened in 1967. Never mind the fact that discrimination and violence against gay people still hasn't ended - the environment in which lesbians and gays had to live for at least the thirty years after the initial, very limited, decriminalisation of gay sex was pretty wretched. It got progressively better, but only very gradually.
I'd contend that one of the consequences of incrementally improving conditions for homosexual people is that many others who would otherwise have stuck only with opposite sex relationships - for fear of ridicule or worse - have been progressively encouraged to explore and experiment, rather than sticking to previously accepted social norms, and in many cases have discovered that they rather like swinging both ways. I've long believed that human sexuality exists along a spectrum, and the notion that people must be either entirely gay or entirely straight is as ludicrous as the ancient prejudice that all must be straight and being gay is some kind of affliction.
If the eventual endpoint of this evolution is that the group floating in the middle ends up being larger than either of the segments of the population that are purely attracted to one gender, then perhaps this shouldn't come as such a big surprise?
A quite remarkable coincidence.
Equally it is true that the oldies were influenced in the youth in their opposite direction, although that was a long time ago.
https://twitter.com/davidrwilson/status/1363172651028602889
The tiny tweak behind COVID-19 vaccines
https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/tiny-tweak-behind-COVID-19/98/i38
Prepandemic coronavirus research by Jason McLellan and Barney Graham led to a trick for stabilizing the prefusion form of spike proteins
Otherwise, the situation is such a complete muddle it’s difficult to know what to do for the best. The obvious solution would be to increase capacity through using supply teachers and office spaceS to create smaller classes with more spaces in them, but that isn’t simple or straightforward.
The real mistakes were made back in October with the refusal to consider blended learning and the legal threats to make sure that couldn’t happen.
Ultimately, any attempts to sort that mess out will merely be tinkering at the edges.
Edit - another thing the government could do is stop parroting this lie that all pupils in all schools are going back on the 8th. They’re not, and it’s causing immense confusion and upset.
(edit - link upthread; 4th Feb)
I'm a little annoyed that no-one has the gumption to run a trial on the masks - e.g. ask some schools to use them and others not. At least try to get some real work data.
Keep up the good work - we do appreciate it.
‘About this requirement for all children to wear a classroom.’
Perhaps not his fault, but a serious deficit in a politician. And it's not as though there are any countervailing positives.
Since there is no agreed definition of "woke" from its opponents, quite often it becomes "modern stuff I don't approve of."
Which can encompass a heck of a lot.
At the end of the day most of us have relationships with those on a similar level of attractiveness and who we share similar personality traits with and get on with
You get at least 12% of people self-identifying as heterosexual while expressing some level of same-sex attraction. You also get about 3% of people self-identifying as gay or lesbian, which is at the low end of other figures.
Finally, the survey is online people and seems to cut off at age 75, excluding up to 10% of the adult population in the oldest cohorts - so you can stack the overall numbers a little in the baby-boomer direction.
I hope I’m wrong because that’s ludicrous. But that’s what they’re trying to do to us.